|
|||||||||
Posted August 21, 2001
Shinto Shrine
I usually enjoy reading your news site, if for no other reason than it allows me to read articles and news items that are usually omitted from US papers.
However, this week I notice that there is a glaring omission in your own news coverage. The visit to a Shinto shrine honoring war criminals by several high-ranking Japanese politicians including (though two days previous) a visit from PM Koizumi himself!
Why does this story not merit not even a peep from your journalists and writers when the latest adventure in Macedonia (arguably of less long term importance) rates a solid week of headlines?
~ Jeff Rhody
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
Justin Raimondo's column of August 17, "Yasukuni Brouhaha," addressed Koizumi's visit to the shrine.
Always Support Your Troops!
You
people should be ashamed of yourselves. Those pilots, observers and
ground crews for those planes have risked their lives flying over hostile
territory led by an individual with a sh*tty human rights record! I
can't say that it was right but you should always support your troops!
If
these radars "illuminated" or tracked coalition aircraft (US
British, etc.) that is considered a hostile act, or an act of war ...
because usually a missile soon follows these incidents. Fire control
literally means aiming missiles, in plain English.
I am disgusted that people still do not support people who heard the call to serve this country, which won its freedom due to brilliant statesmen, and the blood and hardship of those who chose to fight for it! I am a veteran of the US Army Airborne and damn proud of it, even though my contribution was small (four year enlistment, plus reserves). I am damn proud I served my country, as my two brothers and recently-deceased father did (World War II Vet-Navy) – all with honorable service records.
You
people don't always have to agree with what the UN and our government
does, and you do, of course, have the right to question the legality
of any actions they may take, but do not ever forget the soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines, who have to risk it all to the tune of those three
magic words – Duty, Honor, Country – which so many of your fellow
citizens hold dear!
I suppose that, in order to keep an open mind I must examine your stance. Regretfully, I was too disgusted to read the article. An educated mind questions things, some things aren't so pleasant or easy to figure out, and everyone is entitled to an opinion, another thing that makes this country, warts and all, a great place to live.
Our government places the overall command and central authority of its military into the hands of civilians. These civilians, with the aid and assistance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, decide who, what, where, and why with our armed forces. If you want answers, ask them!
~ E. Holachek
The "Backtalk" editor replies:
By "always support your troops," you seem to mean, "don't criticize your government's military policies." This blind support might be defensible during a national emergency, but it's not defensible during a decade-long beating of a foreign country.
Duty, Honor, and Country are not served by military aggression, nor is the safety of US troops.
Repercussions
[Regarding Jon Basil Utley's guest column of August 16, "American Interventionism and the Terrorist Threat":]
Sure appreciated Mr. Utley's article about the results of our aggressive and violent international meddling. I cannot understand how a citizenry of this country can believe there are not serious repercussions for what our elected, and unelected, leaders do!
Thought maybe I was the only one sitting out here cursing at this thing!
Explain Yourself, Alexander
Thank you for posting Jon Basil Utley's essay [of August 16, "American Interventionism and the Terrorist Threat"] about how the US's meddling in the affairs of foreign countries increases the likelihood that those against whom we intervene will resort to terrorist attacks on Americans abroad and here at home.
This is a theme often repeated on Antiwar.com – this synergy between policy and terrorism has been given a name: "blowback," a concept best explained by Chalmers Johnson. For the most part those warning of the untoward consequences of US foreign policy seem to take it as an article of faith that terrorism is an unintended consequence of foreign policy – as if our military, intelligence and State Deptartment geniuses are, for some reason, unable to see the Newtonian relationship between, for example, the US's bombing Iraq and the gaping hole in the hull of the USS Cole. I would suggest that, rather than the blowback being an unintended consequence of foreign policy, it is the war party's aim to deliberately provoke acts of terrorism against Americans.
Especially
now, with the Soviet Union having disappeared, the war party needs the
occasional outrage against Americans to justify the fortune heaped on
the military and civilian contractors. Whenever an American civil airliner
is brought down by a terrorist's bomb, no guest on Nightline says "This
is a perfect time to ask ourselves if we might be spending too much
on our 'counter-terrorism' efforts." To the contrary, more agents
are hired, more money is lavished on contractors. Likewise with the
military. Note the almost complete indifference in Washington to the
story this week that the Pentagon is unable to account for over one
trillion (!) dollars that it had been given over the years.
There is a story that a seafaring bandit was terrorising fishermen and merchants on the Black Sea in the time of Alexander the Great. Alexander's soldiers eventually caught the bandit and brought him before the "great" man. Alexander asked the bandit to explain why he terrorised innocents the way he did. The bandit stated that he and Alexander were in the same business, only Alexander robs and rapes and pillages whole countries at a time, where he the bandit can only take on his victims boat by boat. Explain yourself, Alexander.
British Guns
[Regarding the August 13 column, "Defenceless Britain," by "Emmanuel Goldstein":]
Recently my wife and I were visiting some very educated friends in Britain (the husband is an actuary and the wife a high school teacher). One of the topics that we discussed was gun control in the UK. Interestingly, our English friends believed that defending ones family during a violent crime was justified as long as you did not use a gun at any cost! A baseball bat, ax, knife (crossbow?) etc. was a satisfactory self-defense weapon, but a gun was not. It appears that folk over there are very indoctrinated and cannot see simple reason on some issues.
There also seemed to be a belief that the British police should not use live ammunition at any time but rather rubber bullets. I would like to see the British police take on a crazed gunman with a AK-47 with rubber bullets. Weird. And of course civilians wouldn't be able to do anything themselves.
A Laudable Strain
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of August 15, "In Praise of Moral Equivalence":]
I've
been reading your pieces with great interest over the past few months,
and I must say that you've become one of my favorite commentators (you'll
be perhaps chagrined to find out that Messrs. Hitchens
& Cockburn
– cheers for bringing him into the fold – among the others that I
admire). In your latest piece on Israel, I detected a quite laudable
strain, namely, the bankruptcy of using ideology (whether it be "neocon/liberal
hegemonist" variety or some orthodox Marxist notion) as a filter
for making a moral judgment's. It seems as if you're espousing an idiosyncratic
independence of mind that recalls the best of Nietzsche.
I suspect you won't agree, but whatever the source, it's a joy to read.
One last thing, bad as Cuba is, "free market" US-backed Guatemala,
Haiti, & El Salvador aren't exactly a picnic either. Perhaps you
could extend moral equivalence that far as well? Part of Fidel's appeal,
as you are no doubt aware, has also something to do with "sovereignty"
and "independence" from US-domination and that pack of bullies
(some of them terrorists) down in Little Havana. I do believe those
are libertarian watchwords, no? Who indeed is a bigger murderer of his
people, Fidel or Rios
Montt? At least Fidel provides some butter along with the guns,
eh?
~ S. Bender, San Francisco