Posted September 17, 2002

The PLA

While Matuszak ["Arming the World"] points out the obvious one-sidedness in the book Red Dragon Rising he apparently endorse the authors' assessments of the so-called Chinese threat as a “sobering” analysis. I find this amusing; to me the authors’ “analysis” is typical Yankee hogwash in the best tradition of the infamous “Cox report”.

Take Taiwan for example, China should get a Nobel prize for his exemplary tolerance towards the separatists. While “democratic” countries everywhere are using tanks and warplanes to crush their separatists “terrorists”, China’s position is consistent and well publicized -­ he is content to wait for a peaceful reunification and he would attack if and only if Taiwan goes for independence. Here comes Uncle Sham, arming Taiwan to the teeth and blustering about its “absolute commitment” to defend Taiwan against any attack from the mainland. A clear signal for the Taiwan separatists who ratchet up their inflaming rhetoric and activities which provoke the predictable response from Beijing....

And since when has Taiwan been a nation? “Oh, Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan ended a long time ago, Taiwan has been a de facto independent country for the past century.” Chen Sui Bien’s mentors in Washington and Tokyo chorus in unison. Really? What they forget to tell you is Taiwan was robbed by the Japanese colonists!, but now the colonists are saying that “since you lost your possession for so long it's no longer yours!” So Uncle Sham and Japan can claim their “right” to patrol in the Taiwan straits.... Aussie diplomat Gregory Clark was of course right in saying Uncle Sham’s Taiwan bluster defies logic, but when seen from the colonists’ perspective perhaps it does make perfect sense, it’s the thug’s logic at work.

Regarding “China’s surprise attack on India (1962)” How could India plead innocence when its patrols probing in Chinese held territory had already triggered several bloody clashes in the preceding months and elicited stern warning from China that if she did not desist from further provocations she would have to bear the consequences? On that fateful day 20 October 1962, Indian troops were massing at the Thaga ridge for an attack on Chinese position, north of the infamous Macmahon line which the British colonists imposed on China and their Indian successor insisted on keeping. In the end the PLA chose to get in its blow first rather than wait for the Indians to deliver their attack. Calling this “Chinese aggression” must count as one of the greatest hoaxes of the century! And when there’s a hoax you bet Uncle Sham will be there -- right up to his neck as usual. Not only did the US conspire with India to frame China, he even dispatched the 7th fleet to back India up. For Christ’s sake this massive fraud had already been debunked by the Aussie Neville Maxwell in his definitive account of the conflict, “India’s China war” more than 3 decades ago!

Nevertheless the congenial pair of partners in crimes, Uncle Sham and Bharat, insist on perpetuating the fraud until this day.

~ Deng Xi Chang, Hong Kong

Sascha Matuszak replies:

Red Dragon Rising is definitely Defense Department propaganda, the authors place the US in the seat of ultimate righteousness, blessed by God with the ability to judge all nations and ignore all hypocrisy.

Nevertheless, the main point of their book was to point out the corruption of the PLA and China's own hypocrisy concerning arms deals. Every arms control treaty China signs could double as toilet paper. And the facts presented as well as the documentation is difficult to refute offhandedly as "drivel" -- and this is the difference between good propaganda and bad propaganda: the former slips in a few facts and research, the latter slips in tired slogans, cliches and appeals to nebulous emotions.

And of course the US behaves the same way, and this is what I try and point out in the column.

And if you would sit and calm down for a minute, you Courageous Defender of the Motherland, you would read that I defend China's arms sales as a response to America's own dealings and as a way to garner international support, money and power -- things any self-respecting Defense Department official can understand.

And the two little examples you gave are quite convincing: Chinese conveniently forget that the first thieves to reach Taiwan were defeated and exiled Chinese nobles roughly 200 years ago. And I'm sure you've mentioned "200 years of history" to defend your "Uncle Sham" Theory once or twice.

But I do thank you for the history lesson concerning the India-China "war" and your letter in general.

Need a Primer

Christopher Montgomery ["Iraq War II: This Time We Mean It"] is absolutely opaque. Or maybe that is just the British way. But what does he mean by a "liberal empire"? That it is liberal like Rockefeller is liberal -- a sort of friendly fascism that trickles down enough benefits to keep the masses quiet? That it is "liberal" compared to a Stalinist empire?

Maybe what some of us blockheads need is a primer on "libertarianism" so that we can decipher the in-jokes and the code phrases. You could easily put that on the site, and at least I would read it.

Clearly, the United States has the military power to go in and destroy the predigested countries of the middle east. And Europeans will not stop us, if that is our goal -- they won't even apply trade sanctions. Is that his point?

But what will this gain us? If we use nukes to achieve our ends -- or even enough "conventional" bombs -- we will likely destroy the oilfields we presumably covet. This doesn't seem like a very "conservative" position, and it doesn't really fit any conventional description of "liberal."

Insanity -- collective, and global -- is what we are dealing with here.

~ Thomas S. Duncan, Astoria, Oregon

Lazy Journalists

For those who have not read 1984 please do, for those who have reread it. Then watch the nightly news from the major networks, it's very intriguing. What you will find is not just distorted truths, but more interestingly, not a denial, but a complete omission of the past, at least a past that does not lend itself to the wishes of the war party. ...

I think there are two reasons for this. One, it's easier. I suspect our journalists at least at the major networks are lazy, it's easier just to take what the Pentagon or White House sends you, change some of the wording, then report it as your own. ...

The second reason, if you challenge the powers that be in White House or Pentagon briefings, asking them difficult or uncomfortable questions, soon, you will probably not be called upon....

Oh, forgive me, some actual evidence of the media denying the past and leading us to war would be appropriate. I remember as a child (really I do) Dan Rather interviewing Saddam in the early eighties. Danny was commenting on the bodies around Baghdad swinging from lampposts with our then ally (yes he really was our ally). I remember Saddam using chemical weapons against Iranians in the mid-eighties, then against Kurds in the late eighties. I remember George Bush Sr. refusing to condemn him, I remember him increasing 'agricultural' credits to his regime. Most damning, I remember Saddam building WMD, and the Reagan, Bush administration not giving a hoot.

Now, why are we going to war?

~ Jim Vinsel

Shoestring

I agree [with Justin Raimondo's "We're Making a Difference"], your source has been the best that I receive -- always timely, very informative and spot on in analysis. I did have it in my mind to share some with you out of the next paycheck. We can relate to operating on shoestring doing school at home on one income.

~ Debra S.

Americans

...Americans never seem to learn from history. The Bush rhetoric has caused oil prices to jump, which will inevitably cause the American economy to slow. This fact will be seen soon, as it was previously in history. So, economically, the Yanks are shooting their own feet. Is this a concern to the rest of us? Yes! If the US economy slows, so too will all G7 economies.

The goal of the western world should be to contain Saddam totally, and have such a real threat to his personal safety that Saddam will be too scared personally to antagonise anyone. True, this doesn't solve anything for the poor Iraqi people, who suffer daily, but it should stop the threat Saddam poses to the region.

The remaining problem then is a moral one, for the Americans. Having put Saddam in power, how should America act to alleviate the suffering of the average Iraqi citizen? No clear answers here, but the Pope is right when he says the US should understand the powerful force of desperation.

The final problem for us all is how to deal with cowboy Bush, who is hell-bent to ride his horse of the apocalypse with his six-guns blazing. Carter put it best when he said the US was previously as a champion for independence and liberty, but now is in fact a meddler in other countries precisely to thwart democratic values. Bush is but the result of his country's systems: a system where election turnouts are less than 50%, and people are too ignorant/apathetic to think of consequences. Americans have only to look to themselves for their problems, and should look to others for help to solve them!

~ Ron Gorthuis

US Media

As if I required more proof that the United States' media is wallowing in self pity, blind patriotism and self censorship, I noticed an item on the BBC News website, quite prominently displayed:

"US threatens world peace, says Mandela" as he accuses George W. Bush and Dick Cheney of being "dinosaurs" who only "desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America".

I logged on to CNN to see if the opinions of this much respected South African statesman would appear somewhere, only to find one article about "South African court allows gay couples to adopt" and another about "Biko's legacy -- 25 years on".

This only stresses the importance of independent news sites such as Antiwar.com.

~ Neil Lowrie, UK

Assimilation

Are we becoming the Sheliak?

What, you may ask, are the "Sheliak." Just another creation of Gene Roddenberry's genius as enshrined in the popular television series Star Trek -- The Next Generation.

The Sheliak appeared in an episode from that series' third season called "The Ensigns of Command."

The "Sheliak Corporate" (as they are referred to) are a race with whom the "Federation" had signed a peace treaty. Pursuant to the terms of the treaty the Federation ceded a planet named Tau Cygna Five to the Sheliak believing it to be uninhabited.

However, Tau Cygna Five is not uninhabited. Unbeknownst to the Federation, a colony of humans who were the descendants of the survivors of a marooned spacecraft was thriving on Tau Cygna Five.

The Sheliak inform the Federation of this and demand that the human interlopers be removed, as the Sheliak have slated Tau Cygna Five for colonization. Although the Sheliak signed a peace treaty with the Federation the story-line makes it clear that the Sheliak view humans as a lower form of life and would have no more compunction about simply obliterating the human colonists than you and I might have about killing a cockroach.

The Federation tries to renegotiate the treaty to make some allowance for the human colonists of whom they were previously unaware. The Sheliak, unfortunately, are sticklers for the letter of the treaty, and refuse. Realizing that it is bound by the terms of the treaty, the Federation dispatches the Starship Enterprise along with its resourceful crew to remove the human colonists from Tau Cygna Five. Upon arrival at the planet the Enterprise sends the android crew-member Data to the planet's surface in order to inform the human colonists of the need to evacuate them or face annihilation by the Sheliak. To everyone's surprise, however, Data finds, not a crashed ship with a few dozen people on it, but a thriving civilization of over 15, 000 people, descended from the occupants of the 92-year old lost ship. Furthermore, their leader, Gosheven, boasts of the colony's accomplishments, scorns the Sheliak claim, and refuses to leave.

Data informs Gosheven and the other colonists that the Sheliak will evict them by force and tries to evoke images of how they will die at the hands of the Sheliak if they do not leave. However Gosheven's rhetoric is too strong for Data's arguments. Gosheven fires up the colonists with bellicose language of how they will stand and fight and resist eviction by the Sheliak.

Data decides to begin using actions instead of words and demonstrates the awesome destructive power of his sidearm ("phaser") to drive home the point that the Sheliak, who will be arriving shortly with a full battle group of interstellar warships, bristling with armament much more destructive than one measly phaser, will, in all probability, annihilate the human colonists from outerspace and the human colonists will never even see the Sheliak before they are killed. The type of hand-to-hand combat envisioned by Gosheven will never materialize.

Data's ruse works and the human colonists are safely evacuated.

So, are we in the United States more like the Federation, the human colonists, or the Sheliak? With our ability and willingness to use overwhelming force against hardy, battle-hardened, but, ultimately, outgunned opponents, it sure seems we possess certain Sheliak properties.

To quote the Borg, another adversary of the Federation on Star Trek -- The Next Generation: "Resistance is Futile. You will be assimilated."

~ Vijay Venkataraman, Baton Rouge, Louisiana