Posted June18, 2003

Regarding "Remember Kosovo?" by Nebojsa Malic:

I sure as hell haven't forgotten!

There should be a deep hot place in the hereafter for Madeline Albright and friends, after a trip to the Hague.

I couldn't believe that at this day and age there could ever be anything like the so called Rambouillet "Agreement." Of course that was before the Iraqi War!

I was going to say "God help us," but can only hope he was looking the other way.

~ Ken Link, Montana

Nebojsa Malic replies:

I'm in full agreement with everything you said – except the quip about The Hague. That kangaroo court I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemies, not even Albright (though there would be a certain twisted justice in her ruination at the hands of her own monster). Balkans interventions created precedents that made what is happening today possible. In turn, current events will probably be precedents for future outrages. One way to try and check the madness would be to undermine its foundations – and undoing the insanity in Kosovo would be a good place to start.

I would very much like to understand more about the situation in the Balkans. I have read a couple of books – Peter Maas, Noel Malcolm – but I am quite confused. Perhaps Mr. Malic could make some suggestions in a future column?

~ Phyllis Guest, Dallas, Texas

Nebojsa Malic replies:

That sounds like a splendid idea. I am remiss in not having this done already.

Regarding "Dead in the Water" by Mike Ewens:

As a USS Liberty Survivor I would like to thank you for thinking of the USS Liberty and the new film Dead in the Water by the BBC. With help like yours we might just get the Congress to do what they were to have done 36 years ago and that is let us testify to what really happened that day of June 8, 1967.

~ John Hrankowski, USS Liberty Survivor, Rochester, New York

Mike Ewens replies:

I am happy that I could do my part. Thank you.

Regarding "The Apartheid Wall" by Ran HaCohen:

First, this term "Junta" doesn't apply to the Israeli government as the Palestinian government – Arafat and Abbas have their history military wont, meaning, both sides should be termed "Junta."

Second is what of Israel's right to exist? The reason these Junta Israeli leaders are in power may be a result of the Palestinians not willing to negotiate from their own demands? What if the Israelis demanded right of return to their homelands? That would mean 33% of their own population would arrive in Arab lands reclaiming those-something Arab countries would not be too willing to have (Since before the recent Russian immigration, 50% of Israel was settled by Arab-Exiled Jews!).

Fourth is the fact Palestinian exiles from other lands have ended up in the west bank as a result of Oslo. Families that might have left long before the Balfour Doctrine have claim on Israeli land since they were kicked out of Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. in those genocides. In short, do these Arabs deserve any claim on any land, including the west bank? The answer is sternly, no-they willingly left. It is those forced off their lands that have a claim. Also, there are Jewish descendants in America of genocides in Hebron which once had a sizable Jewish population that was killed by the Mufti. Do these Jews have a right of return to the west bank?

~ Pelham S.

Ran HaCohen replies:

First, whereas the Israeli junta controls one of the world's strongest armies, the Palestinian leadership has got no any army at its disposal but a (meanwhile destroyed) police force, so the term junta is not applicable to it.

Israel's right to exist and actual existence are under no threat whatsoever, so what's the problem. No Jewish Israelis want to return to their Arab homelands; we've got enough problems anyway, no need to invent ones.

Fourth, there was no genocide in Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Lebanon, or Egypt. The descendants of what you term "genocides in Hebron" (in which about 70 Jews were massacred) have long renounced any demand to return there, openly opposing the settlers unrelated to them who terrorise the city in their name. If Jews can claim rights to Palestine after 2000 years of absence, I cannot see why Arabs who lived here just 55 or even 80 years ago cannot; however, no one claims right of return for Palestinians who left willingly, but to those who were driven out or fled during the war and were denied return after the war, their property confiscated by Israel.

I always enjoy your articles, and since you are more in tune with the inner workings of Israeli Politics than any of us are, I have a quick question. Recently Benny Elon, the Foreign Minister who has for a long time argued for the eventual transfer of Palestinians, has come out with his own peace plan which states that to achieve peace Israel should completely take over the West Bank and Gaza and force all Palestinians to claim Jordanian citizenship (I believe this includes Israeli Arabs as well). Of course, if this was to happen, then the Israeli government can make the claim that the Palestinians can't have equal voting, employment, etc. rights in the newly established "Greater Israel," since they are supposedly foreigners. I suppose my question is, can this legally be done? Can a country confer people with another countries citizenship-without that country giving permission? Or can Jordan even give citizenship to Palestinians en masse anyway?

~ Nathan S.

Ran HaCohen replies:

Thank you. Of course no country can confer people with citizenship of another country. Elon’s “peace plan” should not be analysed logically (it is not), but rather ideologically. It reflects on the one hand the desire to possess the whole land while getting rid of its inhabitants: Elon’s aim, as he openly admits, is to make life for non-Jews in “Greater Israel” unbearable to the point that they leave – “voluntarily”, as he terms it. On the other hand, it should be read within present political context, as yet another attempt to present Sharon as “dovish”, “moderate” and “sane”. Toying with even more criminal and murderous ideas than Sharon’s actual policy, bypassing him from the right, serves to strengthen the new false image of this bloody warrior as “man of peace”.

Mike Ewens Replies

Great job with the new "week in review" mailing. You guys are doing the most important work that can be done in U.S. politics; educating the public with truth and libertarian philosophy. It really helps me keep a positive focus on things.

~ Jeff S.

Associate Editor Mike Ewens replies:

Emails and words of encouragement like yours keep me going! Thanks so much!

You are the best, I only wish I could send larger cheques. I hope you will consider supporting Howard Dean for president thank you

~ Ronald M.

Mike Ewens replies:

Thanks! I don't who I will vote for...or if I will vote at all! However, Dean does seem to have the best foreign policy position out of all the Democrats.

Your web site is very interesting. It tells the truth about the association of gangsters that is running the Republican administration in Washington. They probably planned themselves 9-11 to achieve their goals. It is a shame to see those monsters ruling the most powerful country in the world.

~ Michel B., Canada

Mike Ewens replies:

Thanks for the encouragement... however, I doubt that the "gangsters" would any better if they were Democrats.

DB: I am surprised the press this issue (WMD's or the lack thereof) is receiving given the scope of the search. One only need review the massive weapons caches found so far to realize this man (Saddam) had a penchant for weaponry and other military toys. To believe that WMD's were not part of his collection is a conclusion reached only by the most naive. When they are found, and they will, I have to wonder if the discovery will receive the same amount of coverage.

One only need review the massive weapons caches found so far to realize this man (Saddam) had a penchant for weaponry and other military toys.

Mike Ewens: Oh, right... those "weapons caches." Those AK-47s that can shoot bullets across the Atlantic? Surely a threat to America. Or those airplanes that never left the Iraqi airbases because they were in disrepair. Another part of Saddam's evil arsenal that kept me awake many a sweaty night. This "penchant" for military hardware could easily characterize the American military... Have you seen our planes, battleships, subs, carries and 105 mm machine guns... Now that's a "penchant!"

Oh, I forgot Saddam's nukes, tons of anthrax, VX and fireworks... wait, they haven't found those yet (perhaps we should start looking back home...).

But you know better than I:

dB: To believe that WMD's were not part of his collection is a conclusion reached only by the most naive. When they are found, and they will...

ME: Why aren't you the man analyzing the dossiers and CIA reports. You know something they do not. Seriously though, if Saddam couldn't maintain a respectable army or air force, who is to say that he could maintain complicated weaponry like WMDs. I mean, you need a huge military complex and budget... kinda like the one in the US... to be able to produce and maintain WMD... I digress.

Thank God people are finally seeking the truth and not buying into the mass multimedia propaganda. You guys are always in my meditations. I don't have the funds to contribute but thought can be just as powerful. I wonder how many people know that corporations don't pay any taxes, get tax refunds, and are paid by states, cities, counties and others not to leave their area. We wonder why states and the government are so far in debt, how can the working class possibly support financial institutions this big plus what looks like an endless war.

~ Mary T.

Mike Ewens replies:

Ditto!

Thanks so much for reading!

There is such an incredible focus upon the low number of "civilian casualties." Please realise that the Iraqi defenders were on their own sovereign soil standing up to an illegal and unprovoked aggressor. That they were slaughtered wholesale by U. S. weapons of mass annihilation doesn't seem to count.

I think that this obvious propaganda ploy should be countered somehow.

~ Bob Ficalora

Mike Ewens replies:

You are right, there is little focus on Iraqi casualties. See Robert Higgs' piece for a good perspective on this: http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030613Higgs.html.

Unfortunately, the military would be the best ones to estimate the deaths of the Iraqis who fought in the war... but of course, they are not releasing any numbers.

The best fight for the "truth" is here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org.

Regarding the Mike Ewens/ Rodney Jenkins dialog posted June 10:

Rodney Jenkins: I never did get around to acknowledging or thanking you for your extensive response as below – but I will do so – and with some interesting comments from some friends of mine in other parts of the world – to wit that there here is still a significant divide in how we all see things and observe the world – as compared to you – and that in some ways this division by a common language (maybe) or more likely that the embeddedness (what a word for the military to come up with hey?!) of the American psyche around the concept of the Flag – yes even you Mike – does underpin the difficulties of communication and pitfalls of misunderstanding – even when we recognise we are on the same side and want to achieve the same ends and are overflowing with goodwill. At the end of the day I think it has something to do with the fact that Americans have what we see to be an unhealthy respect for authority as compared with the native scepticism of the Brit and the Aussie...

Mike Ewens: What "authority" do I have an "unhealthy respect" for exactly? I think my comments made it fairly clear that I believe that the individual is the ultimate authority of all things. Given this, the market – for ideas and information – must suit. Thus I argued that the state of the media is more than likely a result of what consumers demand...

You have misread my comments, because I have a great distaste for authority. However this distaste is for an authority of a different type (which Europeans and Aussies usually forget to separate): coercive authority. The "authority" of the market in setting prices is not coercive, the "authority" of the labor market is not coercive. The "authority" of the market for newspapers and their info is not coercive. Hence, I may have an "unhealthy respect" for the "authority" of the media... but this is because this "authority" is the result of voluntary agreements: i.e. people purchase certain cable channels, buy certain magazines and patronize certain websites, which ultimately leads to a manifestation of the "public's" opinion. In this case, a pro-war opinion. The ultimate state of the media is the result of this; something I cannot change without coercion... quite against my principles. Overall, the media is a product of the tastes of the market, not the other way around. Again, I direct you to the Mises quote that I cited. Even if the government "was in bed with the media" those outlets that pushed a line that the consumer didn't like would still fail.

RJ: ...in short that you – collectively speaking start from the proposition that you tend to accept at face value what you are told – while the whole of our education system historically is built around questioning everything you are told and testing it for veracity – goes back to Aristotelian logic really.

ME: No offense intended – but this a very pompous statement. Apparently, you do not like how the market for media ended up, nor do I. But you further contend (essentially) that my comment "that is the way it is" can be equated with "accepting something at face value." What do you think I do all day at Antiwar.com??... I doubt the government's rhetoric, Fox News' rhetoric and even the rhetoric of my peers. All this in the search of the "truth." Apparently, you have found that truth already and are disgusted the world isn't preaching it. I think that I must show and convince people that my positions and ideas are correct – by clearly demonstrating facts and opinions – in the hopes of them seeing my version of things. I think that the logical conclusion of your criticisms involves the government (coercive authority) – or some entity of your choosing – delineating what news we should all see and hear. But you counter – that is what big corporations are doing right now? No.

Just as much as food producers are not forcing me to be hungry or clothing manufacturers are making me need attire, the media is not forcing the market of information upon us. I have a little more confidence in the individual and the economic marketplace than you do.

Oh, you are false in asserting that I take things at face value... my mother taught me better than that (not government schools though). I even studied in your "educational system" and I did quite well. Moreover, I didn't see a dramatic divide in the process of teaching... students there weren't questioning the world any more than Americans do... but that was just Oxford... who knows?

RJ: ...you might recall your comment to me that I was being perhaps a tad cynical to even suggest such a thing and question why such a thought had not even appeared the Anti War radar? Anyway Mike – here is the link in question: TheStar.com – "Hawks turned media into parrots." ...

ME: I am unable to find this anywhere in my comments. In fact I wrote:

"My theory is this: the media tells us (us usually means the majority of the public), what we want to hear. If they did not do so, they would lose money. This leads one to conclude that the majority of Americans likes war in foreign lands... not a far-fetched theory. So no matter what happened with this possible "deal," [between the media and the Pentagon] it really doesn't matter."

I still hold to this. Now to this article you cite... in it I find no evidence that violates my theory. Now, perhaps the media has an agenda... well, so does Antiwar.com! If people dislike us... they DONT READ! Just as much with Fox, CNN, CNBC Fox had the best rating during the war because they were the most pro-war. On to the specifics of the article....

The article reads:

"CNN hewed closely to the Pentagon party line, giving us that endless military parade of gung-ho retired generals — former NATO commander Wesley Clark was a notable exception — while letting loose a flock of squawking hawks, including Defence Policy Board member Richard Perle; Dr. Doom himself, Henry Kissinger; and right-wing think tank commander, William Kristol."

Does this mean that CNN is the "bitch" to Hollywood when it only shows mainstream movies rather than independent films or art films? The same reason Antiwar.com didn't invite these people to speak, is the exact same reason that CNN did.... i.e. it was what their viewers wanted to see. We could never have an article by Kissinger because our readers (rightly) think he is evil. But guess what? A large part of the public doesn't think such things of Herr Kissinger... we just have to show them why not!

The article continues:

"Released last week, the FAIR study reports that 'official voices'— US government and military, past and present — dominated TV newscasts, 'squelching dissent' and crowding out alternative viewpoints, including foreign perspectives."

FAIR – presumably – presupposes that the roles of private media companies is to show all viewpoints and be, as they say, "fair." I admit, it would have been nice to see me or Justin Raimondo on CNN, but hey, CNN has an agenda and private property... deal with it!

And more:

"'With more than 1 in 4 US citizens opposing the war and much higher rates of opposition in most countries where opinion was polled, none of the networks offered anything resembling proportionate coverage of antiwar voices,' FAIR reports."

What is this? Now, if say, 28% of the population is "pro-porn" we should demand an equal share of the air? I don't see why any portion of public opinion "deserves" the airtime of private media companies. Unless you intend to force them?

I hope I don't sound too harsh... I just HATE it when someone (namely Euro-types) thinks that disagreements with Americans arise out of some cultural difference, supposedly from your "superior" education. I will reiterate what I wrote in the last email:

"[Your demand for] 'accurate and fearless analysis of the world around us' is a wonderful vision for the general media, but you have to remember that is your demand, your taste. In your criticism of the media, you must admit that you are attempting to place your value judgments upon it. You saying what the media should be is just as much a judgment as my declaration that women should be more attracted to me, my professors should be kinder to my math assignments, etc."

Regarding "Suppose You Wanted to Have a Permanent War" by Robert Higgs:

Yesterday you had a story on how to start a perpetual war. It was only up one day, but perhaps the best thing you've ever posted. Why have you pulled it?

~ Dick Nugent

Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:

We didn't pull it, but we change the items on the front page daily. Previous days' pages (going back a week) can be found by clicking the appropriate day under the Last 7 Days heading on the left margin of the Antiwar.com homepage.

WMD

The Bush administration's determination to go to war in Iraq no matter what – encouraging belief in a bin Laden-Hussein connection, spreading fear and hysteria by fabricating information about WMD – was apparent from the start. They never proved or demonstrated any clear and present danger, yet few if any in the press or among the Democrats had the courage to stand up to the manipulations of this administration. We had senior diplomats who were in a position to know better resign in protest against the administration and no one listened. The administration demonized all who questioned their information and opposed the war. It is high time to expose the Bush/Cheney administration's covert policies and intentions, beginning with Cheney's Energy Task Force. Surely that's where the seeds of the Iraq war were sown, if not before. Cheney is hell-bent on keeping his secrets; they would be too damning. The Energy Task Force deliberations must be made public.

~ Karin Barnaby

Regarding "No WMDs? Fabulous, but Still Beside the Point" by Matthew Barganier:

As usual your man Matt puts his finger squarely on the button! My own view is that Bush and his camp followers are relatively happy for the media to tear itself to shreds debating the rights and wrongs of the WMD issue – as Barganier implies – better they run that one to death and forget to talk and complain about the real problems. I suspect also that the media will bore their public – this public in due course just will not have interest in any further Iraq war issues – seems that Bush will retain control of, continue to manipulate the media for his own benefit.

~ Charles Craske

Regarding "An Evening with Ann Coulter" by Anthony Gancarski:

I can't for the life of me understand what is "conservative" about Ann Coulter. Wacky Federalist, maybe.

How does it help to go on identifying people by useless labels? People like her and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly seem bent on destroying people's faith in a pluralistic society, and faith in cooperative, nonviolent action to improve the lot of everyone. In short, they are anti-conservative and radically bent on creating a new social order. Specifically, the one that the American Revolution was fought to replace: God-Kings with unquestioned authority, a class of Royals in whose presence we all must prostrate ourselves, a huge underclass excluded from the cash economy and property-ownership, etc. ...

~ Tom Duncan, Astoria, Oregon

As one who served in this Nation's active military for over 20 years starting with the engineers in Italy in early 1944 I think that Ann Coulter should be placed in a safe place at the east end of Cuba.

After I had completed my time in 1964, along with 432,000 other fools, the US Government changed the formula, by law, for paying retired pay. Of the less than 30,000 still living we have witnessed our successor ingrate retiree's drawing at least 1/4 more per month throughout the 25 military pay grades than we do. A blatant form of discrimination.

When I retired Medicare did not even exist. I knew that I had earned lifelong health care. Then this same employer of mine took that away from me and my cohorts on attaining age 65.

For 31 years, my wife of over 55 years, and, I have had to pay some $150,000.00 of our own money for health care that the Nation I served reneged on. Recent and belated TRICARE is a JOKE in my region.

Just this month a federal suit of which I am a 1996 member concerning this health care was refused by the Supreme Court to be heard.

I hope all these enthusiasts of Ann Coulter may have to live like the downcast of the Mid East some day.

~ W.D. Gray

Regarding "Ethnic Cleansing: Some Common Reactions" by Ran HaCohen:

I am so impressed with the author of this article.

Words cannot describe the ire I feel now.

Hearing the plight of Oriental Jews has forced me to recognize the eerie correlation to Black people here in America, and to the hand of Europeans who seem to have always thought that their way is the only way, that dark skin makes a difference. Even today with all of the strides that "minorities" have made, we are still not where we deserve to be.

I will continue to educate myself on this issue.

~ Lula O.