|
|||||||||
Posted September 4, 2002
[In response to Ted Rudow's letter of August 29]:
In his letter, Mr Rudow states that "US Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Washington 'reserves the right' to overthrow all regimes it considers a danger."
I, of course, completely disagree with the way the United States conducts itself outside its borders, but one must also acknowledge that many 'regime changes' that occur with outside help only succeed because the situation in that particular unfortunate country allows it to. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein may or may not succeed, but if it does, it will be largely because Saddam Hussein has alienated his people and the Iraqis themselves are divided.
The recent 'overthrow' of the president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez appears to have been partly as a result of the United States' displeasure with his government, but if would not have occurred without the help of Venezuelans. Yes, the United States is acting like a bully at the moment, but bullies are cowards who take advantage of obvious weakness. You cannot therefore only blame the United States for the world's woes, other countries are just as complicit by their inaction, treachery and corruption.
~ Niel Lowrie, UK
Peace in the Balkans!
or, Who Cares Who Alexander the Great Was?
[In response to Nebojsa Malic's response of September 2]:
Oh, yes, Nebojsa, I absolutely agree with you. To most of the people in the Balkans it is clear that... it is not quite clear who Alexander the Great was – only Macedonians find it very important to speak on the subject and keep digging and digging for their lost identity. In my humble opinion, if the digging took so much effort, they must have been seeking in the wrong place and, at the same time, depriving themselves of the sympathy of their neighbors, who they meanwhile manage to denigrate in all possible ways. I am not sure this is a very healthy approach.
Therefore, I am also commenting on the typically negative attitude of Macedonians towards their (strongly!) Bulgarian cultural heritage. I believe it is their business if they do it or not, for political reasons or not, but a consciousness built on so much negativism and denial of facts, as well as on the desire to always differentiate oneself from the others, which often assumes a quite aggresive form, is hardly the way to counteract the oh-so-hated interferences by the Great Powers under which we have all suffered for ages. And yes, one reason we suffered was that we were hardly ever united and that we always gave in to manipulations of our egos from outside through promises about money, power and territory.
So I do agree with you about everything that you say but one thing. I do not agree that Bulgarians find the events in Macedonia funny. We also did not find the events in Serbia funny. I don't think there is a single sane person in the Balkans that finds the bombing of peaceful population or the dismantling of states and the disruption of peaceful multiethnic communities funny. We have, indeed, lived together for centuries and built some of the oldest cultures in Europe. We are more tolerant towards each other than anyone can imagine because we have had to live together longer than most peoples in Europe. We are an example of tolerance, not intolerance. And I hope that in spite of the disruptive influences, we will keep living so, unless, and there my comments on Macedonia go, we give in to this weird combination of pride and inferiority (strongly encouraged and used by smart heads from outside) which has always brought us to seek our identity in a place other than home and therefore stimulated us to start going against our neighbors. It is no wonder pride is the first deadly sin. It gives our souls right in the hands of the devil.
~ Evelina (A Bulgar)
Dear Mr. McConnell:
I had been wondering what had happened to your column in Antiwar.com. Now I realize that you had been busy developing your new magazine, The American Conservative.
Well, I just subscribed and I'm eagerly looking forward to the first issue.
Congratulations and good luck!
~ Chris Kent, Westbrook, CT
Baghdad Could Be the US Stalingrad
In the current debate of the pros and cons of an invasion of Iraq, there is one very possible scenario that I have not heard mentioned in scores of hours of Sunday morning TV talk: The prospect of American and allied (if there will be any allies) forces getting bogged down in a prolonged siege of Iraq's larger cities, losing thousands of soldiers in house to house fighting.
In terms of the quantity and the quality of each side's munitions, the Iraqis' are no match for our military's. Their air force cannot stop ours from bombing them at will and their army cannot stop our tanks from rolling across open desert. But if we want to take their cities, we are going to have to send soldiers into apartment blocks and factories (etc.) on foot – at that point, they will have the advantage.
When Hitler's army invaded the Soviet Union, his Panzers were too much for the Red Army in open fields. Not only did the Germans have the advantage in terms of weapons, the training their soldiers got was much better than that of the average Soviet soldier and the Wermacht's leadership far out-classed that of the Red Army – Stalin saw to that with his purges of the Red Army's officer corps in the 1930's. The Soviets were ill prepared for the Germans. The Germans advanced hundreds of miles into Russia. Soviet losses were enormous. By the time the German army stopped on the outskirts of Leningrad and Moscow and Stalingrad to catch its breath, the Red Army had been, essentially, defeated as a fighting force. Then the Germans laid siege to Russia's biggest cities. In spite of all of the Germans' advantages, they could not break the cities' defenders hold on their streets, or the defenders' will to resist. This was not because Hitler was shy about inflicting "collateral damage". To make a long story short: Street fighting is a very bloody business. Leningrad's defenders held out for 900 days, despite having their supply lines cut off. The Germans lost 250,000 (killed or taken prisoner) soldiers in the battle for Stalingrad. The Germans were bled white and they no choice but to retreat. It is worth noting that 2 years after the German siege of Stalingrad was broken, some 70,000 battle-hardened Soviet troops were killed in April and May of 1945 fighting the old men and young boys (of the Volksturm and Hitler Jugend, respectively) in Berlin's streets.
Baghdad could be end up being our Stalingrad. Strange as this might sound to most of the people who have been watching CNN and FOX news for the past 11+ months, we could realistically suffer huge losses, even without the Iraqis deploying of any "Weapons of Mass Destruction" they might have.
~ Lloyd G.
Suppose the pro-war types are granted all their wishes. Suppose we "do" Saddam, and suppose we somehow get it done without a war of civilizations breaking out. Since Iran is just as big a "threat" as Iraq, suppose we manage to throw out the government there too. Wonder of wonders, suppose we do the same in Syria. Then Lebanon, Syria's playground. Don't forget: the recent al-Qaeda activity is hot in Tunisia, where the only (reported) attack since 9/11 has occurred...Maybe we'll let Jordan stay.
Suppose the almost impossible good fortune of finding a local toady in each of these target countries, and installing him, and the US actually gets to, for the most part, leave, at least not having to carry on active operations.
Ollie North and Rush are full of "I told you we could." So we are wildly successful in this endeavor in all these countries with governments that didn't bow to US/Israeli pressure.
Examine what a little hell we make for ourselves. Just like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, we have our toadies in place, but the local population seethes with anger because their chosen (or preferred) leader is not sufficiently subservient (read: worthy).
Back to reality:
The lingering presence of the US bases just to make sure the toad is safe on his throne, this was the true dynamite that caused 9/11. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the model toadies, were the hatching ground for al-Qaeda.
"One more victory like this and we are undone."
~ headrick
Thanks for printing the truth about the Balkans.
Why are the Americans so surprised that the whole world despises them? As a conservative (small C), for most of my 61 years I regarded the Americans as the Good Guys. Yugoslavia changed all that. Turned my politics on its head. The Hague is a disgraceful travesty – the real war criminals are NATO. I regret to say this (and never thought I would ), but after Yugoslavia and now Macedonia the USA HAD IT COMING!!!!! The biter bit, the pet demon biting the hand that is feeding it.
I will take great interest in following your website and passing on all information as best I can.
~ Elizabeth Sutherland, England
Reverse Backtalk - Buchanan a Warmonger?
Dear Editors,
I am writing regarding Matt Bivens' article in the Moscow Times. While I generally agreed with the points made by Mr. Bivens ("Chickenhawks Crow for War"), I was astounded to see that he is listing conservative Patrick Buchanan as a pro-war pundit.
Buchanan is one of the loudest voices against the war on Iraq (see today's syndicated column, "The Cheney Doctrine: War Without End").
Buchanan has strongly opposed every American military intervention in the last 15 years, including the first Gulf War.
It seems that Mr. Bivens own domestic political agenda has driven him to lump Buchanan (whose economic policies he no doubt opposes) has caused his own informational sleight-of-hand.
~ Eric Garris Webmaster, Antiwar.com
Matt Bivens responds:
Hello Eric,
I listed Pat Buchanan because the Chickenhawks database I cited lists him. However, your point is obviously valid, and I will see that the Moscow Times runs a formal correction. I'll also address it in a P.S. to my next column. Thanks for pointing out the error.
FYI, it is an error and has nothing to do with anybody's political agenda.