Below we post a recent selection of letters to the World Socialist Web Site.
On “Bush’s claims on Iraqi weapons—lies in pursuit of war”
Dear Patrick,
Thank you for the excellent rebuttal to President Bush’s deliberate fabrication of Iraq’s threat to the world and the US. It is ridiculous to hear this man tell us over and over there is evidence but fails to share it with the inspectors or the citizens who are being threatened with Saddam’s ability to take over the world. If he hasn’t been able to knock even one of US’s planes illegally bombing in the no-fly zone it seems even a child could figure he doesn’t have the capability or intent to harm the US (or Israel, a real threat to world peace in the region).
Britain’s Tony Blair for some reason is going along with this charade and most Britons think he’s a disgrace to their country. Bush is the most dangerous man in the world, not Hussein.
KW
Long Beach, California
1 February 2003
On “Blix report to the UN: diplomatic charade masks US imperialist war aims”
Splendid article and well done, Barry Grey: what you are writing so eloquently and concisely is sadly true! There must be a better way than being governed and at the mercy of warmongers, liars and criminals whose only concern is to increase their power and line up their pockets and those of their friends, even at the expense of millions of decent hardworking people everywhere.
AY
Florence, Italy
On “How to deal with America? The European dilemma”
Dear David North,
Thank you for your article. It occurred to me that in almost every science fiction story I have read the center of world government is in the USA. I wonder why?
Secondly, you only touch on China’s possible role in all of the current situation. China has often been referred to as the sleeping giant, although one imagines that militarily it is no match for the USA.
Cheers,
BB
25 January 2003
* * *As a 65-year-old American woman who lived in France and Belgium for the first 11-12 years of her adulthood, I cannot adequately express the degree to which I am appalled by the current government of my country. Primarily, I would not be able to stop in expressing the horror that I feel, first at the theft of the 2000 presidential election, and, then... I am sure you know that at least half the people are not in favor of our present foreign policy, were not in favor of NAFTA, the world trade agreements, etc. It is a terrifying situation, both for us and for the other inhabitants of the planet. I applaud your article. Please keep them coming.
SK
25 January 2003
* * *Dear David North,
Your analysis of the United States’ interests and its actions in furtherance of them from 1945 to 1991 is correct, as ever.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, I could not help but notice the change that began here at home. It came to me that many of the rights that had been fought for, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, began to be withdrawn or at least seriously cut back almost immediately, and the reason the government was able to do so was because they no longer had to prove themselves more interested in citizens’ rights than their now defunct opposite number.
I think back to all the struggles: of labor for better working conditions and pay; for civil rights for African Americans and the end of “effective” slavery, and the Voting Rights Act; of Roe v. Wade and other victories for women in this country; of the surge of activism that contributed to the end of the war in Vietnam and the ultimate dethroning of the administration of Richard Nixon. And I thought: “They don’t feel they have to do this now,” meaning that all of these things we struggled for were ultimately given to us, not just because we struggled, but that we were seen to struggle for them, and the United States could not afford to be seen as less “progressive” than the Soviet Union in the eyes of the rest of the world. In other words, in order to prevent people from “going over to godless communism,” the United States had to be seen to be the White Knight, supposedly delivering to the people all that they asked for and all that they could possibly want.
Now, of course, with the Soviet Union becoming a type of gangsta-capitalist state and no longer the challenge to the US’s domination that it once was believed to be, the ruling elite feel that there is no longer a need to appease a people that they believe now pose no threat to their dominance. This is directly comparable to their present frank scorn for their European allies. Suddenly Roe v. Wade is under ferocious attack; workers’ rights are being steadily decimated; corporate corruption is rampant; minorities’ rights to vote (as we saw vividly in the 2000 “election”) are once again being blocked; and personal greed is feral.
Please continue, as you have done so well, to pull the wool away from everyone’s eyes. The citizens of the United States, and of the world, must be made aware that this hegemony sought by the United States will not benefit them, but only further entrench the plutocrats and tighten their grip around the throats of humanity.
CZ
San Francisco
25 January 2003
* * *I’m an American. That was a fantastic article. Thank you.
LR
27 January 2003
On “US plans ‘shock and awe’ blitzkrieg in Iraq”
Surely a much simpler word for “shock and awe” would be “terror.”
LE
30 January 2003