Posted February 26, 2003

Regarding "A 'Toxic' Meme?" by Justin Raimondo:

Timeline of a budding Libertarian:

1960-1974
Born on a Navy base to a Commander. Identified with hippies, knee-jerk liberals, the usual.

1974-1994
Strung out on drugs – totally apolitical. Watched the carnage in Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq, Kosovo through half-shut, totally blind eyes.

1990
Became single father of two toddlers. Refused any help from the State and fought like a bastard to get the "authorities" the hell out of my life. I 'm still with my kids and they're in high school.

1994-2000
Got sober. Started listening to Pacifica Radio. Speeches by Angela Davis, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky cracked my head open. Read Capital. O.K, read the first 600 pages. Whew!

2000-present
Irked by sanctimonious Left, who seem to feel that the nanny state will suckle us all as long as we don't mind giving up our freedom as we nuzzle up to the nipple. Reading Proudohn, Bakunin and loving them a lot. (lots of history, too).

Here's the point of my e-mail.

I've been convinced that Conservatism = mental illness for a while now, but when I read your stuff, Raimondo, you talk about "real conservatives" and "the Old Right" and I never knew these existed. If a real conservative wants to slash military spending and corporate welfare and preserve individual liberties, let's just say I'm hungry as hell to learn more. ...

~ Jim Priest

Regarding R.E. Rex's letter posted February 15 and IMF's letter posted February 11:

R.E. Rex and I.M. Fletcher ... continue the glorious US tradition of justifying any US war by falling back on the World War II precedent. That precedent is ultimately the biggest dragon that US anti warriors must slay. Those letters to you prove that, and it is the reason I wrote my recently published book.

Our perennial World War II analogists can justify any current US war crime by easily trotting out, again, the alleged necessity of atom bombing Hiroshima. Your rebuttal to Rex was good, but his underlying unarticulated point needs to be addressed. That point would seem to be that any mass murder of civilians can ultimately be justified if the war itself can be justified.

Mr. Rex and his ilk can justify Hiroshima because they can justify the US war against Japan. Even though the US committed essentially the same act at Hiroshima that Hitler did at Auschwitz, Rex and the boys would morally differentiate between the two based on the fundamental justification of the warring parties, in this case FDR vs. Hitler or Tojo.

That being the case, the logic of the Rex clan would seem to stipulate that Auschwitz was in and of itself not a fundamental moral outrage or war crime, but rather that Axis aggression against Poland or Pearl Harbor was. Thus the Rex school of thought would be in the interesting position of justifying Auschwitz if Hitler had been a defender instead of an aggressor. I wonder if Mr. Rex has ever thought that one through, or indeed any of the related moral questions.

One might also question Mr. Rex's assumption that the US was not an aggressor against Japan, and his implication that US Pacific warfare began with Pearl Harbor. If Rex can justify Hiroshima with Pearl Harbor, does he know if the US committed any aggression on Japan's borders to provoke Pearl Harbor? Has Mr. Rex actually read any of this history?

Does he know that for forty years prior to Pearl Harbor, the US imperial machine had been rampaging in Japan's neighborhood conquering the Philippines and pieces of China? Does Mr. Rex know further that in the months preceding Pearl Harbor the US had been militarily supplying Japan's archenemy China, while simultaneously building up its strategic bombing threat in the Philippines? The US and its imperial allies in East Asia had simultaneously hit Japan with an oil embargo.

If Iraq was practicing a similar policy today against the US, would Mr. Rex think that the US could justify its own Pearl Harbor style attack on Iraq? The answer is yes, if one listens to the all too familiar rhetoric of the Rex/Bush warmongers. The next question is: are they just ignorant of history, or simply incredible hypocrites? And the last question is: do they know what happens, historically, to such bullet-headed morons?

Would they answer that the US "won" its war against Japan? The goal of that war was to save China, but it was lost in 1949 four years after it was "saved," was it not? That interminable war led inevitably to yet another "victory" for the US in Vietnam twenty years later. One has to really wonder why the bullet headed warmongers continually clutch at the limp straw of the US record during and after World War II.

~ Richard F. Hill

Regarding BGCP's letter (Backtalk, February 22):

First of all, I'd like to thank BGCP for the civil tone of his (or her) criticism. I'm sure this wasn't easy, and it's very important to recognize and respond to thoughtful, intelligent, principled criticism. This can initiate the kind of dialogue that this country desperately needs.

Historically, the writer's criticism of the antiwar movement has a lot of merit, particularly in the '60s and '70s. There is a long tradition of antiwar activists screaming "no war" without articulating an alternative. However, I think today's antiwar movement is a bit different. A few points:

* Many antiwar activists are suggesting an alternative: Continued inspections, intensified inspections. This school of thought holds that containment often does work, and while it's slower, the overall number of casualties is probably far lower.

* Others do not see Iraq as a clear and present threat. Powell seems to be grasping at straws, and the inspections have not turned up anything significant. This camp believes the stated purpose of the war is a pretext, and the US may be acting with more sinister motives.

* Hussein is a reprehensible leader, and he probably does have some weapons of mass destruction. However, let's consider that the Soviet Union had far more lethal resources in the '50s and '60s, and that regime crumbled without any overt, preemptive aggression by the US. The weapons, of course, remain a danger, and there are still terrible problems in the region – economic problems, problems in Chechnya, environmental problems-- but there is certainly plenty of evidence that a cold war, combined with antiwar resistance to a hot war, helped avert a global catastrophe. The record for hot wars in the past 30 or 40 years is not so good, and seems to get worse with every new conflict.

* I agree that it is deeply disturbing that many leftists supported Clinton's war, but I was not one of them, and I know many leftists and liberals who were appalled by what we did in Kosovo. Trust me, there are plenty of us out here. As I stated in earlier correspondence to this site, I am completely mystified by the idea that Clinton was any kind of 'liberal' at all. The idea that such a notion could take hold on both the mainstream left and right scares the living crap out of me!

* As for the Iraqi people, yes, we should try to do something really substantive to help them. On this particular point, I have to agree that there has not been enough discussion, either from the neocons or from the antiwar movement. I am a noninterventionist, but I'm not an extremist, and it's bad foreign policy to do absolutely nothing while citizens in other countries get tortured and slaughtered. (Even if, as many articles on this site have stated, the 'incubator baby' story and several others were U.S. propaganda, there are very accurate firsthand reports on what goes on in Hussein's 'prisons.')

* Your general point is well taken: The world does need some kind of policeman. However, it shouldn't always be the US, and the policeman should be a principled professional protecting honest citizens, not a brutal, corrupt thug doing the bidding of corporate interests or religious fanatics.

* Here's one suggestion: We should insist on UN monitors and inspections for humanitarian aid to make sure food and medicine is distributed to the population. This would be less intrusive than what we're doing now, and if Hussein interfered with us, we'd have a lot more sympathy from the Arab world.

* Change the format of sanctions completely, so that we starve Hussein and his regime, and not his people. This, of course, would be a very complex endeavor, but the first obvious step would be to decrease our reliance on fossil fuel. This is actually pretty easy, and we've had the technology for over a decade. I've spoken to science professors who are livid because they are not allowed to teach students about this technology in our schools.

But we don't have to sit on our asses and wait for some new breakthrough. Don't believe me? Walk into your local auto parts store and ask them about high-performance air filters. You can increase your gas mileage and horsepower by 10-20% for about $40. One of my buddies is a hawk, and we argue all the time, but he drives an Insight. He knows we've got some real foreign policy problems with respect to our attitude to fossil fuels, and he's really doing something about it. So, I would respectfully suggest to BGCP that many of us not only have an idea for a solution, we are putting that solution in action. It's not enough, obviously, but it's a start. ...

Now, obviously, these are just a couple of ideas – a really constructive solution to the problems of the Iraqi people is a long way off. I'm not a foreign policy expert, I've only suggested a few ideas, and some might not work. But I think BGCP has raised some valid points. He's issued a challenge – a fair one – and we should all try to respond. If we can focus on constructive new ideas and solutions, we can prove to our principled critics that we have some intellectual and moral backbone.

~ MJ, California

Regarding Denka Seiken's letter posted February 15:

I have never written a letter like this before but was compelled to comment on the remarks made by Denka Seiken. How dare he speak for millions of Americans who very much care about who might hate them. I'm a mother and a grandmother and am very concerned about the climate of hate he and too many others like him promote. We're not a perfect nation – never have been and never will be but the average citizen would rather be here than anywhere else – one of the main reasons being our right to dissent. To be able to disagree strongly with the war hawks is a fundamental liberty and any attempt to put that down is a move towards something much worse. 9/11 was a horror we will never forget but I think we'd better get used to it if we continue along the current path. I can't believe he was ever a liberal but he certainly doesn't speak for any Americans I know. The good news is that many of my conservative friends are becoming appalled at the escalating tone of violent rhetoric and hate heard on a number of cable news shows and periodicals.

~ Merle B.

Regarding "The 'Don't Know' Crowd" by Charley Reese:

Please advise Charley that he has misspoken is his article. The US is not the only country threatening preemptive strikes. As recently as last month, the PM of Australia has used the term and caused quite a stir here in S.E. Asia, specifically with Indonesia and Malaysia.

In this sensitive time, these authors of the articles must be carefully construct their articles to speak with truth, and not simply by emotion.

~ Da'im Robert, K.L., Malaysia

Powell's 'Conversion'

One of the big surprises recently has been Powell's change from restraint to enthusiasm, no doubt due to the quality of evidence he passed on to the UN. Now I have an explanation and a tentative prediction. Ready?

Bush warhawks = Bad Cop
Powell = Good Cop

It's an old trick, and a simple one, but it seems to have worked. And now:

Bush warhawks = Bad Cop
UN = Good Cop

We should soon find out if this one is true too.

~ Phil Camp

Neo Means Nuts?

Thank you Antiwar.com for providing a home for those of us of a conservative nature who oppose waging aggressive war against Iraq, and other nations. To really appreciate the differences between real, or old school conservatives and the neo-conservatives I suggest you visit townhall.com, and compare the writings of Robert Novak, Buchanan, and Steve Chapman to the neo-conservatives like John Leo, George Will, et al.

While the conservatives talk about national interest, real threats, and the rights of nations particularly national sovereignty, the neo-conservatives are ranting about our divine place in the world order and our manifest destiny of bring democracy to the world. They come of like pseudo-intellectually (do I repeat myself?) televangelist.

They are also appear devoid of any historical knowledge, even current events, whether they are ignorant or simply deceiving their audience is unclear. Consider this from George Will's recent column, "The London demonstration – 1 million strong, much the largest in British history – was not as large as the death toll from the war Saddam Hussein launched against Iran. The demonstrators simultaneously express respect for the United Nations' resolutions and loathing for America, the only nation that can enforce the resolutions. This moral infantilism – willing an end while opposing the only means to that end – reveals that the demonstrators believe the means are more objectionable than the end is desirable."

Did you notice his reference to the Iran/Iraq war? Remember during this time we supported Iraq, and you will also note Saddam was the current leader. Does it strike anyone as odd that neo-conservatives never bring this up? We supported Iran when the Shah was in power (I'll let you guess how he got there), then when the Shah fell, we supported Saddam against Iran, then Saddam invaded Kuwait. Does anyone feel like we are living in George Orwell's 1984? Are we at war with Eurasia, or East Asia? Do these events speak out clearly against intervention into others affairs? To a rational mind yes, for the neo-conservatives, sadly no.

Please support this site, I've just mailed off another $50 donation, and just think the war party has to give me a tax break for this (also if you don't blindly support confiscating US taxpayer dollars for Israel you are automatically anti-Semitic in the eyes of neo-conservatives).

~ Jim Vinsel

Russian Wild Card

Yevgeni Primakov was visiting Saddam Hussein presumably trying to make him disarm, but there also could be more sinister motive behind this trip – giving some guarantees of help if US decides to invade.

If the UN security council vote US and Great Britain is about to propose is vetoed or overrun, the coalition of willing vows to attack unilaterally without UN approval.

This could prompt the Kremlin to make similar incursion of “peacekeepers” to Iraq as with Kosovo couple years back, just before the war starts. Thus Iraq would be under Russian nuclear umbrella and effectively thwart war.

Russia felt deeply humiliated and swept aside on Kosovo war, and Vladimir Putin clearly says in his autobiography “Vladimir Putin, First Person” that this will not be tolerated again.

Also the current diplomatic alignment with France and Germany supports that Russia is maneuvering to gather antiwar coalition to support its stance.

Now Putin doesn’t care a bit about Iraqi civilians and their suffering, but he must be deeply worried of geostrategic consequences of US invasion and occupation of oil-rich and strategically important country.

We'll soon see if he's ready to stand up against American hegemony and restore the rule of international law.

~ AH, Finland

Celebrity Sheilds

It appears that there are only a handful of people in this world that may be capable of stopping this attack against the Iraqi people by going to Iraq and staying there. Two that come to mind are former President Carter and the Pope. Many millions of antiwar demonstrators and hundreds, even thousands of "human shields" will not stop this madness.

I don't think President Carter, though he is antiwar, is willing to go the that length, and the Pope is old and ailing. But even so, perhaps he would consider it along with Archbishop Tutu, Nelson Mandela, perhaps a few Nobel laureates. Too bad Princess Diana is no longer here; she worked with the removal of landmines and met many victims of war.

~ Rick O.

Bush and Hussein

The peace movement needs to point its statements two directions: at Bush, and at Hussein. We need to be demanding Hussein to absolutely cooperate fully, and/or to go voluntarily into exile in order to save his country. Both leaders need to hear our voice. Simply stopping war does not answer the what-to-do-with-Hussein question which has existed for over a decade.

It needs to be answered, now that it has been brought into light. If we do not address both sides, our statements can be used to support Hussein, which is not the purpose of our peace movement. Please pass this comment on to the policy-makers of your website. It is important that our statements support the need to seriously restrict Hussein, acknowledge that he got himself into this by being a dictator/oppressor par excellence, and stand strongly behind that perception.

~ Kelly Sutton

Oil

Here is more proof that the proposed attack on Iraq has nothing to do with disarmament or human rights violations but securing a supply of oil.

Here are parts of a letter written by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in 1998 to President Clinton: "We believe the US has the authority under the existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."

On May 29, 1998 Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others wrote another letter stating in part. "The United States should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf – and if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power." "If Saddam is left in power a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will be put at hazard."

The letter offered no hard evidence that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

~ Kenneth D. Curry, Alberta, Canada

Keep Them Coming, Nebojsa!

I have been a regular Antiwar.com visitor ever since NATO's cowardly attack on Serbia in the spring of 1999. Even though my "sphere of interest" is the Balkans, I want to thank you for each and every column you publish on your site, not just those regarding the peninsula. You speak for the millions of folks around the globe who have come together to protest the insane policies of the Bush cabal.

Speaking of the Balkan-related columns, Mr. Maliæ's articles are definitely a must for everyone, not just us “Balkanites”. You couldn't have found a better man for the job. I enjoy reading Balkan Express, and I am sure many of your visitors do, too. This is the kind of material that makes people come back to Antiwar.com.

I also wish to thank you for the Srebrenica dossier. It's about time the lies were confronted and dismantled. I will make sure all my friends know about Antiwar.com.

~ MT, Ontario, Canada

Regarding 'War Party Stumbles' by Justin Raimondo:

Thanks for the article!! The hawks called the rally in Indianapolis a rally "To Support Our Troops." We labeled it what it really was, a "war rally."

~ Joe Farah, Indiana Veterans for Peace, Inc.

The "Support the Troops" rally in San Antonio was heavily promoted in the media. The organizers stressed that it was not a pro-war rally, but only to support the troops if they go into battle. The local head counts ranged from 150 to 500. 1,000 is propaganda. The Austin antiwar rally got no media promotion and 10,000 turned out. The Alamo rally was an unqualified failure.

~ Vincent May

Another interesting irony: Chirac was wounded in the Algerian war. So the only political leader among the major players with any combat experience is opposed to the war.

~ John Purdy

As further evidence of the weakening of the war party, this Sunday's Meet The Press had Rep. Dennis Kucinich up against the prince of darkness himself Richard Perle. I was amazed to see a US politician take a firm stand against the war on network television. He even accused Bush of provoking a war over oil. His quote was: "How'd our oil get under their sand?" I was hoping he'd mention the elephant in the room, Israel, but he didn't. Tim Russet did however bring up, and read from, Robert G. Kaiser's Washington Post article about the Bush-Sharon connection.

Finally, if any of your readers want to get an insight into the workings of the Bush mind, I highly recommend reading "Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics" by Michael Lind. It's scared the hell out of me.

~ Hesham Fouad

Further reason Aznar can support the war. He promised to serve only during two election cycles. He has reiterated that he will keep this promise. He is in the second cycle and has called for the Partido Popular to chose a new leader and has set the process in motion.

~ Ralph McGaughey, Boston, Massachusetts

Regarding 'Vive la France!' by Justin Raimondo:

At any rate, his whole case relies upon his only looking at those forces of Left and Right whose parties are represented in government. The majority of the British Left opposes this war, but that isn't represented in parliament or in the main institution of the Left, the Labour Party. The trade unions however, which fund the Labour Party, have come out strongly against war. Five of the largest unions are pushing for a TUC resolution in favour of national strikes in the event of war. In Italy, it is the DS and the RC which oppose war, while the rightist government support it. In France, Chirac may oppose the war, but so too do the Socialist Party, the Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire and Lutte Ouvriere. In Greece, PASOK strongly oppose war. In Spain, it is the United Left which is most involved in organising demonstrations against the war.

Justin is a rightist who would presumably prefer it if conservatives were not so enamoured of imperialism and the state as most of them are. The notion that Chirac is a principled opponent of imperialism when he is trying to resuscitate France's imperial past in Africa, and when we know he has economic interests in Iraq which would be threatened by a US attack, is obviously false. Wasn't this also the same man who renewed France's nuclear testing in the pacific and accused other Western powers of "appeasing Serb fascism" because they weren't hawkish enough on the Balkans issue?

Renewed proof, if it were needed, that "a political subjunctive is in no way commensurate with a political indicative" (Terry Eagleton).

~ Richard Seymour, London, UK

The "Axis of Evil" is the American Media. Never mind their complicity in drumbeating for a war with an impoverished, third world country like Iraq. American newspapers have always had a love affair with war but now the rabid dogs of the media, talk radio, supply a kind of putrid, jingoistic warmongering directly attributable to the more "polite" news media. Witness the bashing of the French and Germans in press and radio. Now we shall probably see Mexico-bashing by the pit bulls of the air waves after Mexico courageously declared it would not support a war with Iraq. Where are the defenders of free speech and free thinking when free countries assert their freedom? Have we become the New Nazis, The New Soviets? Any objective information we attain now comes from "Radio Free Europe" in the form of the London Guardian or Independent or Observer. Effective how the entire American media appears to be a tool of the government and its position on the war with Iraq. Well bravo to the People of Spain, England, Australia, Mexico, Italy, France – Viva La France! (Raimondo) – and "Old Europe", who have courageously taken to the streets to practice a form of democracy that Blair and Bush will never quite understand. And shame on our so-called political leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike, who do not have even a fraction of the guts of a frail, eighty-year old Pope to stand up and say, "This war is wrong!"

Like Emile Zola, the great French writer, I Accuse the so-called "free" world leaders of selling out. I accuse them of high crimes and misdemeanors for pursuing a war in disregard of the wishes of their own citizens. I accuse them of war crimes if they cynically spread DU, depleted uranium, over the Earth, endangering soldiers and civilians alike. As a veteran I accuse our military leaders of squandering the health of American soldiers for war of conquest; s war crimes tribunal should court-martial you all! I accuse our statesmen of practicing moral cowardice for a kind of timid silence and meek utterances. God will judge you harshly. I accuse our editors and publishers of being bloodthirsty accomplices to a crime about to be committed: You may not have planned the deed to demolish buildings in Baghdad but you are as guilty as Timothy McVeigh. You, of all people, will be judged most harshly as Pretenders of a Free Press.

~ Douglas Herman, Kodiak, Alaska

This article informed me and encouraged me as I try to belatedly to educate myself in world politics. My instincts are good, my information shamefully lacking. I am running to catch up. Thanks for being there.

~ Lynette Mason

Regarding Firas Atrqchi's reply to Jumpmaster (Backtalk, February 22):

Thank-you for posting my concerns about Islam and to Mr. Al-Traqchi for his gracious response. I do believe however that Firas has avoided my questions and sidestepped the real issue. I did not ask him to defend his culture or the followers of Islam or to balance it against any other form of worship. I ask why the leadership of Islam has this penchant for death and violence. In particular the leadership of Iran, the Madras's the Mullahs who proclaim death to the infidels. It goes without saying there are many fine Muslims who represent a far more peaceful side of Islam, but my concerns are the former.

My intent is not to ostracize Islam or any of its teachings, but rather to gain understanding of issues so relevant today. If Firas is to present himself as an expert on this subject in a public forum then he should be prepared to answer those who would question. Lets leave the sidestepping to the politicians.

~ Jumpmaster

Firas Atrqchi replies:

Let's leave accusations to the politicians as well, eh!

I did not intend for it to appear as if I had sidestepped the issue. Indeed, I did not, for I chose to question your narrow vision in calling all leaders of Islam having a penchant for death etc.

However, you only want to hear what you want to hear, and want a quick-fix solution. There are none.

If we are to discuss Iran we need background information: In 1951, the Iranian people held their first, and last, truly democratic elections and chose Mossadegh to lead Iran. His first act was to nationalize the oil industry, which had been under British colonial rule.

In 1951, journalist J.H. Carmical, reporting for the New York Times, wrote "Since Anglo-Iranian is owned by British interests, with the British Government holding a majority of the stock, nationalization of the Iranian oil properties would be a severe blow to the British economy." (New York Times Archives, March 25, 1951)

Sensing that it would lose all-important oil revenue, the British government sought US help in staging a coup to overthrow Mossadegh and return the pivotal oil fields to Western control.

On August 19, 1953, the New York Times reported that "there has been considerable speculation here over General Schwarzkopf's recent visit to Iran. He returned to the United States last week after a trip to Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan and Iran. State Department officials said the department had arranged for General Schwarzkopf's visits to Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan, but that he had made the Iranian visit on his own initiative 'to meet old friends' there."

The Soviets charged that Schwarzkopf (father to Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf of the Gulf War) had secretly paid 5 million dollars to a General Zahedi who led the coup, and that the CIA and British SIS had helped funnel the funds. It was revealed later (this is all well documented history now) that Iranians covertly working for the CIA and posing as communists harassed Iran's Shiite religious leaders and staged the bombing of a prominent cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.

After much legal wrangling and an initially-failed coup attempt, Mossadegh was ousted on August 20, 1953 and the Shah of Iran once again ruled Iran with an iron grip. Mass executions of Mossadegh loyalists followed as Iran was returned to serfdom and a virtual vassal state.

Rather than protest the overthrow of a democratic institution, an August 6, 1954 New York Times editorial charged that "underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism." Message: Iran got what it deserved for wanting to control its own oil resources!

However, the Shah's hold on Iran was untenable, at best, as Iranian society admired and supported Mossadegh. Consequently, to ensure that no harm would come to the Shah and oil interests in Iran, the CIA and the Israeli Mossad in 1957 began to train, equip, and mentor a new police force in Iran, the Savak, who came to be known as one of the world's most brutal security forces. Its main task was to suppress opposition to the Shah's government and keep the people's political and social knowledge as minimal as possible. Amnesty International would later report that the Savak had the worst human rights record, far outpacing the loathed East German Stasi, and the Soviet KGB.

From an Amnesty International report in 1976: Iran, under the CIA-backed Shah, had "the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran."

What are we to surmise from the above? A democratic election, the first of its kind in the Middle East, is thwarted and overthrown for oil interests. And the result? Less than 25 years later, a fundamentalist regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini would rise to power in Iran and extremism would spread throughout the Middle East.

Revolutionary Iran, having overthrown the Shah, would then turn its hatred and bitterness on Israel and the US, accusing them, and rightly so, of having supported the Shah's brutal treatment of his own people.

However, the Mullahs of Iran had no political platform and no sociopolitical vision. They could not motivate or persuade the people that they were a legitimate government.

When in doubt, shout out the name of an enemy. And that is what they did. The Mullahs used Islam to whip support among the populace. Marx did not say religion was an opiate of the people for nothing.

In this fashion, the Mullahs were able to maintain some order of control.

When they spew hatred towards others, it is usually to divert attention from internal matters.

However, I find your generalization of 'leadership of Islam' to be unsettling. You lump all Islamic leaders into a sizable cauldron and then claim they have a penchant for death and violence.

Grossly untrue. Even within Iranian Mullahs, there are several who do not hate the west, nor do they call for death and violence. Mohammad Khatami is one such person. President of Iran. He has long called for an understanding of civilizations and bridging cultural differences between east and west. For his efforts to bring reform (not much, but a start) and reach out to the west, he is called a member of the axis of evil.

I wonder who really has a penchant for death and violence.

Furthermore, just as in Christianity, there are different sects within Islam, and within those exist different schools of thought. By your terminology, I should accuse all pastors, bishops, priests, reverends, etc. as wanting to bash Muslim heads in because Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson call Islam a religion of hate and Mohammad the Prophet a terrorist.

However, I don't because I realise there are different opinions on different matters. Not all Mullahs believe in death and violence. In fact, very few do.

Furthermore, the Mullahs of Iran claim to speak for Shiite Islam. That is barely 10 percent of Islamdom.

Islam, like Christianity before it, is being used to manipulate the masses to further the oligarchs who are power hungry and have no other means to further their political whims.

The Crusades promised all crusaders forgiveness and atonement, and indeed, a seat at Christ's right hand if they embarked on wars of liberation. The Crusades used a good, loving faith to ensure control of vital trade routes. Once shipping lanes to India and China were opened, the penchant for launching a crusade dropped.

Osama bin Laden does the same thing. He uses Islam to whip up the Arab masses who have suffered under tyranny from their rulers for 50 years. They are frustrated for being denied the opportunity to participate in economic and sociopolitical representation.

I assure you, and whomever else is reading, that I do not sidestep issues, nor am I afraid to answer questions. However, I do not warm up well to persistent brushing of all Islam under one stroke. Nor Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., for that matter.