|
|||||||||
Posted April 20, 2003
Regarding "Iraq's Cultural Catastrophe – and Ours" by Christopher Deliso:
You tell the truth. It makes me so sad. I have found that people who know history do care, and those who don't are simply a void when it comes to making moral decisions and living moral lives.
I studied the classics (philosophy, history, and language) for my little B.A. degree at the University of Oklahoma, and I have never regretted having that foundation in understanding all that I have lived through in my 62 years. History and respect for other cultures should be the foundation for all education, of whatever source.
Deliso, you are 100% on your observations and analysis. Thank you, I wonder who besides me is reading your columns – not our soldiers, you can be sure – not Bush, guaranteed.
~ Carolyn Embach, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
Christopher Deliso replies:
My heartfelt appreciation for your letter. I am glad that deep in the heartland some readers agree. By the way, some of those people do in fact read these type of articles – but not for edification, only to see what kind of damage needs controlling on any given day.
All I can say is that had this been the destruction of the Smithsonian, America would have then understood the pain it has caused millions around the world, not just the Iraqis. This was the worst thing a nation could do to another. But what does a country with no heritage know what heritage means?
Christopher Deliso replies:
Yes, indeed. America’s combination of a lack of cultural sensitivity and patronizing attitude infuriate the rest of the world. No doubt all will be forgiven, however, when Iraqis are graced with shopping malls full of escalators, stores just for walking and food courts as far as the eye can see.
Democracy and Freedom Coming to Iraq
The Iraqi people probably still don't realize how lucky they are to be gaining freedom and democracy.
Under this wonderful system, the government does whatever it likes, completely ignoring the wishes of citizens, who are then absolutely free to like it or not. The choice is theirs.
To live under this system, the invasion and ruthless conquest of a small weak country by the most powerful country on earth is surely justified. A few thousand deaths, maimed children, destruction of human habitat including private homes, loss of cultural heritage, and occupation of one's country by the people who did the damage is surely a small price to pay. Don't forget that we are totally free to disagree, providing we don't make a fuss about it. Such a comfort!
Regarding "Empire's 'Liberation'" by Nebojsa Malic:
Isn't great to be Democratized! The only thing the USA protected was the oil ministry and the oil fields! To hell with the hospitals, national museum, national library. Well it only proves to the world, that the USA has only one culture, that of greed and destruction. It is clear that the 'looters' knew exactly what to steal. I'm sure they had a buyer all lined up. They always leave a trail of terror behind.
War and Taxes
Does most of this great nation not understand that Bush & Co. are slowly destroying our rightful inheritance of what little freedom and "wealth" there is left in this country? I am 40 years old and have seen war at least 8 or 9 times involving the U.S. since I was born, taxes raised steadily every year, phony gas shortages, a president (Nixon) who was caught murdering, and fixing an election to get in the White House, but never anything as bold and lawless as this Administration! A preemptive war on Iraq that has wiped out countless thousands of people and a proposed tax cut that will cost us and our children for many years to come. How many great things could we have done with that $80 billion? The Administration knows the tax cut will not be the amount that they want so when it comes time for the elections people will say "What about the promise to cut taxes that was made in the 2000 elections?" And the answer will be: "We tried to cut taxes but the Democrats voted it down!"
How can this be? The land of the free – plus tax! What has happened here?!
I truly love this country and it can be so much more! Let us stop the march to wars that are making the elite very wealthy and powerful. Let us stop the systematic robbery of our national trea$ure by the very same who will benefit GREATLY by the so-called tax cut.
Slaughter, Not War
...War is fighting, is struggle. We do not say a rabbit struggles with a lion. It is slaughter, and the US was right to choose the weakest to show their strength. They do not even dare to teach N. Korea a lesson. The victims are not only the women and children but also the 5000 years of human heritage.
Their act is no different from the Taliban's bombarding of the huge Buddha. This is a cavemen's revenge.
Liberation is a blunt lie; there are many merciful ways to liberate, why the bloodiest one?
~ Peter Chu, Chi Fu Far Yuen, Hong Kong
Regarding Fred Weber's letter posted April 16:
Fred Weber's letter states in part: "We also did not go to war to seize control of Iraq's oil."
Let's look at just some of the evidence and see what people in power and influence have to say about this issue.
During a previous administration while Richard Cheney was Secretary of Defense, he spoke at the Institute for Near East Policy and explained the American rationale for a military presence in the Gulf. "Given the enormous resources that exist in that part of the world, and given the fact that those resources are in decline elsewhere, the value of those resources is only to rise in the years ahead, and the United States and our major partners cannot afford to have those resources controlled by somebody who is fundamentally hostile to our interests."
Here are parts of a letter written by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (now US Defense Secretary, and Deputy Defense Secretary, respectively) 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 and others wrote another letter stating in part: "The United States should establish and maintain a strong 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." The letter went on to say "If Saddam is left in power a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will be put at hazard."
These people are just following through on their beliefs.
Venezuelan Army General Melvin Lopez, secretary of Venezuela's National Defense Council, said on April 15th, that proof exists that the United States administration was involved in the attempted overthrow of their government last year.
It is obvious that the reason for the attempted overthrow was because the administration perceived that the oil supply from that country could be jeopardized.
Since the Venezuelan government was democratically elected this American administration is hypocritical in trying to bring democracy to Iraq.
~ Kenneth D. Curry, Alberta, Canada
Regarding "My Bloody 1040" by Matthew Barganier:
"Not one dollar of mine spent on this war possessed my finger prints, because it never passed through my hands. Thanks to the Pentagon's smartest weapon, the withholding tax, no Thoreau will ever stiff Caesar a penny again."
Matt, Matt, Matt, where should I begin? Let me get this straight, alumnus of L.S.U. and the University of Alabama and the best you can come up with is, "I can't be held responsible, it never passed through my hands!" I can just visualize the disconsolate face and slow side to side shake of his head as Henry David turns and slowly walks away.
I barely graduated high school, Matt. The gym is the only University building I've ever been inside of. I have read Thoreau along with Paine and Henry and Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Adams, Bastiat, Acton and Spooner, Mencken, Hayek, Mann, Mises, Rothbard and others . At the moment though, I am reading Barganier. Disappointment, vexation, anger, intended or not your article has aroused these emotions in me, but not, I suspect for the reason you would have them roused.
When you get down to it, writing articles, pamphlets or essays is not much different than talk. Ink and paper – electrons and pixels? – as opposed to warm air. Matt, I'm a $17.65-an-hour wrench monkey for a midsize corporation. I have not had one thin dime in income tax withheld from my paycheck nor have I filed a return since 1997. I have not done this for the money. That is a fact that must be made clear! These actions cannot be taken "for the money." Though, as a side effect of Freedom the money has meant much to my family and myself.
Instead of buying ammunition for the empire, MY money has gone to pay off a 5 acre lot in the country, a 30 x 16 x 40 foot metal arch building to hide my new three bedroom two bath house under. Paid off my truck, van, boat and motorcycles. Purchased the diagnostic equipment I needed to start my own business (that pays and reports zero, zip, nada, taxes). In my seven year quest to regain FREEDOM in a land of slaves I have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. The only way We the People will ever restore the great Republic is if enough of us claim and regain our FREEDOM. At that point the empire will expire for lack of sustenance, that was after all the point of Civil Disobedience, was it not? Live it Matt. Live it !
Ye shall know them by their fruits, sovereign or slave.
Regarding Tammy U.'s letter posted April 16:
Tammy Us"review" of history was too brief for the whole truth to be presented; as well, it contained non-historical material.
First, she doesn't mention that the United States government provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor through the use of economic sanctions – ostensibly, to engage itself in Europe against Germany. See Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit.
Second, apropos her "Germany had intelligence showing that our ships may, or may not have been carrying supplies...." statement, that could only refer to Germany's warning during World War I about ships carrying contraband (whether passenger or not) were fair game for German submarines.
Before the United States was involved in the Second World War, she was doing her utmost to provoke Germany by escorting convoys from Halifax; by destroyer attacks upon German submarines in the North Atlantic.
As Mr. Koritz stated, it was Germany that declared war on the U.S. after Roosevelt got his declaration of war against Japan. The reasons for this were the stipulations of the September 1940 Tripartite Pact.
Third, would she cite the documented evidence that demonstrates that Hitler planned "to secure Europe, then fight us, on our shores"? A lot of propaganda was engineered by the British to promote support for American intervention in Europe (see A Man Called Intrepid about William Stephenson, British secret agent, and David Irving's Churchill's War, volume II).
She says, "We would have had to fight World War II..." Since the Roosevelt Administration was working behind the scenes to bring about our involvement in World War II, in spite of the antiwar sentiments of the majority of the American people, Tammy is correct – sort of like Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq.
It is always instructive when Americans like Tammy U. attempt to justify US wars like World War II. It is further instructive when they almost invariably get the major facts wrong. It is that rewriting of the facts that then seem to vindicate and justify their warmongering, ex post facto.
Tammy U. says that the US perceived German U boats as delivering a declaration of war? And that Atlantic war was what caused the US to invade Europe and Germany? What history book did you get that out of, Tammy? ...
There were 3 Atlantic incidents: the Greer, Kearny, and Reuben James, all occurring over a month before the US declared war on Germany. What do you think happened during that month? The answer is nothing. ... The Atlantic war had virtually nothing to do with the US decision to declare war on Germany a month after the last, and by then almost forgotten Atlantic incident.
Every historian tells us it was Hitler's declaration of war, not his U boats, that caused the US to declare war on and invade Germany. But if you want the actual story of this Hitler's declaration business, you need to read my new book on the subject. The actual tale is even more bizarre than your phony concoction, Tammy.
And one more thing, you really should rethink your foolish statement that the US can fight a World War II and not follow it up with a Vietnam. The one war inevitably led to the other. How on earth do you think US troops got to East Asia in the first place, if not by way of World War II?
Regarding "Looking Behind Ha'aretz's Liberal Image" by Ran HaCohen:
After you make a lot of very good points about the reporting of Ha'aretz, you once again stick your foot in your mouth and discredit yourself in the final paragraph, where you [a] show your obvious biases with a statement like "a society sinking into the ugliest forms of nationalism and racism, in a country actually run by the army behind an ever thinner fig-leaf of democracy, ...", and then [b] follow it up with a claim that reporting that agreed with your position would be "an unaffected oasis of liberalism and free expression" and "an objective, nonpartisan picture of Israeli-Palestinian realities".
Since you are so willing to distort reality here, how do I know there aren't similar distortions in the rest of your article? How can I trust your translations from Hebrew? How do I know you aren't misrepresenting what Ha'aretz published by cleverly quoting out of context, or outright lying? I end up being forced to discredit your entire article.
Do you see what I mean?
Ran HaCohen replies:
No, I don't see what you mean. Israeli society is sinking the way I describe, and this is the background for the main argument of my column: the deterioration of Ha'aretz's journalistic standards. I think that putting a phenomenon in its wide cultural context (rather than relating it to coincidence or to personal traits like negligence, malice or stupidity) does not discredit an argument, but rather strengthens it.
Further, I truly believe that a newspaper that does not distort translations, does not censor and sack columnists for their views, and avoids the rest of the faults I mentioned, is more objective and nonpartisan than a paper that does all this – no matter what my own views are.
How can you trust my words? I think you should never trust them: try to verify them yourself! That is what Antiwar.com reader Alex Chaihorsky did [see his letter posted October 2, 2002]:
"I was reading the electronic edition of Ha'aretz quite often and had no idea of its shameful practice of 'selective translations'. [...] I asked my Israeli friends about it and they all confirmed your words. I guess it would have been too naive for me to ask 'How's an editor of a 'reputable' newspaper can look at him/herself in the mirror after he/she allow such a denigration of journalistic ethics?"
Eric Garris Replies
I wonder why you never cite Debka.com. Radically pro-Israeli it is. But its intelligence reporting is often very good. ... On the other hand, its reports are so topical that they may often grow stale after a day or two.
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
The main reason we don't carry Debka items is their terrible accuracy record. I have seen the great majority of "intelligence" to be faulty or without confirmation. Although some of their analyses and information are valuable, the fact that so much of it is propaganda-driven disinformation eliminates them as a primary source.
Congressionally
authorized military engagements which constitute the existence of the
state of war (would not require a formal declaration): www.house.gov/burton/RSC/DeclarationofWar.PDF.
Meaning we are at war, and it is LEGAL
Eric Garris replies:
This report differentiates between acts of war and "congressionally authorized military engagements." It states that domestic statute law and international law don't differentiate between the two. It also states that these are authorized by "Emergency Executive Authorities" that are not authorized by Congress.
However, the Constitution of the United States is very clear on this issue, and the President is not empowered to issue executive orders that are in conflict with the Constitution.
Constitutional legal scholars like former Congressman Tom Campbell (not a dove) have stated that the the second group of military actions are in fact illegal and should have required a declaration of war.
The fact that a political party committee issues an opinion that the President may circumvent the Constitution with an executive order is not only fallacious, but would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
If you're really antiwar why don't you post the atrocities of those whom war has been a way of life, instead of criticizing those who wish to put an end to this? Now who is really antiwar, those circumventing these things, or you who is complaining that we should be appeasing to what has gone on at Kirkuk?: "Mass grave found near Kirkuk, claims Kurdish TV station" by Andrew Clennell, The Independent (UK).
Eric Garris replies:
We published this yesterday, but today CNN had an expert saying they were probably dead soldiers from the Iran-Iraq War. As you may have noticed, most of the "mass graves" in Kosovo turned out to be exactly that.
You know, of course, that the US supported the killing of the Iran-backed Kurds during this war and the CIA provided the intelligence that resulted in the gassing of the Kurds? Of course, the CIA denies this, they say the Kurds were gassed by the Iranians, but they are probably just trying to cover their butts.