Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
VanemadUuemad
Kiitust teile! Pole sõnatki juurde lisada!
Üldiselt võiks öelda et teie kommentaar pälvib laiemat lugejaskonda.
Üldiselt võiks öelda et teie kommentaar pälvib laiemat lugejaskonda.
0
0Here comes another huge nuclear embarrassment for Washington.
UN nuclear inspectors just caught close U.S. ally South Korea enriching small amounts of plutonium and uranium to weapons grade.
This revelation comes when the Bush administration's neocon hawks are clamouring for war against Iran over its unproven nuclear weapons program. These are the same hawks who raised a hue and cry over Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
South Korea's six-year-old program was far ahead of Iran's; various deceptions were used to conceal it from UN inspectors. North Korea, to no surprise, has been crowing over this embarrassing revelation, claiming its nuclear program has been justified.
This is the second time South Korea has been found secretly working on nuclear weapons. In the early 1970s, under the rule of strongman Park Chung Hee, the CIA discovered a covert South Korean weapons program. Washington forced Gen. Park to shut it down.
Covert program
This column has reported for a decade that South Korea had continued a covert nuclear program. Japan, according to my Asian intelligence sources, also developed a covert program capable of producing nuclear weapons in under three months. North Korea has 2-9 nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them over all Japan and as far as Hawaii and the U.S. I also believe Taiwan likely has an advanced, secret nuclear weapons program.
Heightening tensions, there was a mammoth explosion in the far north of North Korea that reportedly produced a giant mushroom cloud with a 4-km diameter. The explosion coincided with the 56th anniversary of the founding of Stalinist North Korea and recent reports of heightened activities around that nation's nuclear installations. Could it have been a gigantic "happy birthday" bang for Beloved Leader, Kim Jong-il? North Korea claimed the explosion was part of dam construction. There are persistent rumours North Korea soon plans a nuclear test.
Nerves rattled
The U.S. and South Korea were quick to deny the explosion was a nuclear test, suggesting an accident in a missile base or munitions depot. But nerves in North Asia were clearly rattled, most of all in Japan, whose long-discussed anti-missile system is still only in the planning stage.
The mysterious mushroom cloud comes soon after worrying intelligence reports North Korea is deploying two new ballistic missiles: A road-mobile missile with a 2,500-4,000-km range, and a ship or submarine-mounted version with a 2,500-km range. Both are based on the Soviet R-27 (SS-N-6) submarine launched missile that carries a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead.
North Korea is reportedly working on ships and a submarine design to bring the nuclear-armed R-27 missile within range of the continental U.S. and all U.S. bases in Asia. North Korea's 1-3 Taepo-dong ICBMs can already reach North America, according to the CIA.
Reports that South Korea enriched uranium four times higher than Iran and violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty were dismissed by Washington, which accepted Seoul's response that the extractions were only harmless laboratory tests.
George Bush's born-again cold warriors apparently have two standards for covert nuclear states. If they're U.S. allies, like Israel, India, Japan, Pakistan or South Korea, exposure of nuclear hanky-panky incurs only a few tut-tuts.
If the culprit is in Washington's black book, like Iraq or Iran, any accusations of nuclear delinquency are enough, as we have seen, to bring invasion or threats of war.
This would also apply to North Korea, except the tough northerners already have nuclear weapons that could be fired at South Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Guam and Hawaii, where some 100,000 U.S. military personnel are based.
Exposure of Seoul's nuclear ambitions undermines Washington's efforts to mobilize its Asian allies, China and Russia, to compel North Korea to end its nuclear development -- and reinforces the Beloved Leader's determination to keep making nukes.
This raises a fundamental question. Why shouldn't South Korea have the right to nuclear weapons? Its neighbours -- North Korea, China, and Russia -- are nuclear powers. After all, nuclear weapons, as North Korea has shown, are the best guarantee against attack by superpowers.
If Washington winks at Israel's large nuclear arsenal, what right does it have to deny them to South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan?
UN nuclear inspectors just caught close U.S. ally South Korea enriching small amounts of plutonium and uranium to weapons grade.
This revelation comes when the Bush administration's neocon hawks are clamouring for war against Iran over its unproven nuclear weapons program. These are the same hawks who raised a hue and cry over Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
South Korea's six-year-old program was far ahead of Iran's; various deceptions were used to conceal it from UN inspectors. North Korea, to no surprise, has been crowing over this embarrassing revelation, claiming its nuclear program has been justified.
This is the second time South Korea has been found secretly working on nuclear weapons. In the early 1970s, under the rule of strongman Park Chung Hee, the CIA discovered a covert South Korean weapons program. Washington forced Gen. Park to shut it down.
Covert program
This column has reported for a decade that South Korea had continued a covert nuclear program. Japan, according to my Asian intelligence sources, also developed a covert program capable of producing nuclear weapons in under three months. North Korea has 2-9 nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them over all Japan and as far as Hawaii and the U.S. I also believe Taiwan likely has an advanced, secret nuclear weapons program.
Heightening tensions, there was a mammoth explosion in the far north of North Korea that reportedly produced a giant mushroom cloud with a 4-km diameter. The explosion coincided with the 56th anniversary of the founding of Stalinist North Korea and recent reports of heightened activities around that nation's nuclear installations. Could it have been a gigantic "happy birthday" bang for Beloved Leader, Kim Jong-il? North Korea claimed the explosion was part of dam construction. There are persistent rumours North Korea soon plans a nuclear test.
Nerves rattled
The U.S. and South Korea were quick to deny the explosion was a nuclear test, suggesting an accident in a missile base or munitions depot. But nerves in North Asia were clearly rattled, most of all in Japan, whose long-discussed anti-missile system is still only in the planning stage.
The mysterious mushroom cloud comes soon after worrying intelligence reports North Korea is deploying two new ballistic missiles: A road-mobile missile with a 2,500-4,000-km range, and a ship or submarine-mounted version with a 2,500-km range. Both are based on the Soviet R-27 (SS-N-6) submarine launched missile that carries a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead.
North Korea is reportedly working on ships and a submarine design to bring the nuclear-armed R-27 missile within range of the continental U.S. and all U.S. bases in Asia. North Korea's 1-3 Taepo-dong ICBMs can already reach North America, according to the CIA.
Reports that South Korea enriched uranium four times higher than Iran and violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty were dismissed by Washington, which accepted Seoul's response that the extractions were only harmless laboratory tests.
George Bush's born-again cold warriors apparently have two standards for covert nuclear states. If they're U.S. allies, like Israel, India, Japan, Pakistan or South Korea, exposure of nuclear hanky-panky incurs only a few tut-tuts.
If the culprit is in Washington's black book, like Iraq or Iran, any accusations of nuclear delinquency are enough, as we have seen, to bring invasion or threats of war.
This would also apply to North Korea, except the tough northerners already have nuclear weapons that could be fired at South Korea, Japan, Okinawa, Guam and Hawaii, where some 100,000 U.S. military personnel are based.
Exposure of Seoul's nuclear ambitions undermines Washington's efforts to mobilize its Asian allies, China and Russia, to compel North Korea to end its nuclear development -- and reinforces the Beloved Leader's determination to keep making nukes.
This raises a fundamental question. Why shouldn't South Korea have the right to nuclear weapons? Its neighbours -- North Korea, China, and Russia -- are nuclear powers. After all, nuclear weapons, as North Korea has shown, are the best guarantee against attack by superpowers.
If Washington winks at Israel's large nuclear arsenal, what right does it have to deny them to South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan?
0
0It's unethical to appropriate someone else's name for your own purposes.
If your viewpoint has worth, it will stand without phoney props.
If your viewpoint has worth, it will stand without phoney props.
0
0No I am not Eric Margolis, I thought that was obvious, sorry if it wasn´t. I have posted articles by Margolis before, I see them as a counterpoint to the articles published in this paper which seem to all sing the praises of the US and labels those who dare to criticize as "US haters".
Lets look at the Iraq affair. We were told that Saddam was a threat to the entire world, comparisons were made to Hitler implying that if immediate action was not taken than the world could be soon facing a catastrophe along the lines of WW2. We were also told that there was CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the existence of WMD. We now know that there were infact no WMD and no proof. Was the US lying to the world, or just incompetent? Do people who wonder about these things deserve to be labelled US haters?
We were then told basically oh well, so there were no WMD but this is irrelevant as the US is saving the people of Iraq who will be so much better off without Saddam and they will be oh so happy when we bring them freedom and democracy. All´s well that ends well. Well wrong again. There are still people dying every day in the Iraqi conflict. Even the US now admits that they completely misread the situation in Iraq and it is now entirely possible, maybe even likely that the Iraq will end up in civil war and the country will be run by warlords (infact this already seems to be the case) and the people of Iraq will infact be much worse off than they were before. This is a far cry from the happyness, freedom and wealth that the Iraqis were to be enjoying as a result of US action. If this is how it ends up who should be held responsible?
We were also told that there were ties between Saddam and Bin Laden. This also turned out to be a load of crap. Incredibly enough, it turns out that instead there are close ties between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family who are in the oil business together, a fact which still amazes me. What are we to make of this?
It is also disturbing to me that Bush and Putin seem to be getting rather friendly as they both proclaim to be fighting terrorism. To get Putin´s support the US is basically ignoring the situation the Chechens are facing which in my opinion is morally bankrupt. Consider that Russia is also making lots of noise lately about the plight of Russians living in Estonia and Latvia who are supposedly being discriminated against. Will Bush offer support when Russia invades Estonia to "protect" the Russian ethnic minority? Perhaps the world will be told that Estonia has ties to Bin Laden? Are we to believe that the fact that Iraq and Chechnya are oil rich countries have nothing to do with the actions of the US and Russia respectively in those countries?
No doubt many will now label me a US hater. I will go on the record now to say that I am still a BIG fan of the US. I believe that the world is much better off now then it would be if Russia had won the cold war and that there is much in the history of the US to be proud of. I also believe however the the current US administration is at best misguided and incompetent and at worst has been lying to the american people and to the world.
I believe that it is the duty of every patriotic american (and the duty of free people everywhere in the world) to question and criticize US policy (and the policies of any and every country) whenever they feel that this is in order, this is what freedom and democracy are all about. I believe is was Churchill who said something like (I can´t remember the exact quote) he always says only good things about his country when abroad but when at home it is his duty to criticize and question. This is something for those to think about who label everyone who dares to criticize a US hater.
I will also go on record to say that despite disagreeing with the author of this article I have great respect for him and his writings. It is dissapointing however that every article published in this paper about the US seems to sing it´s praises, no other point of view seems to be represented and this is unfortunate.
Lets look at the Iraq affair. We were told that Saddam was a threat to the entire world, comparisons were made to Hitler implying that if immediate action was not taken than the world could be soon facing a catastrophe along the lines of WW2. We were also told that there was CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the existence of WMD. We now know that there were infact no WMD and no proof. Was the US lying to the world, or just incompetent? Do people who wonder about these things deserve to be labelled US haters?
We were then told basically oh well, so there were no WMD but this is irrelevant as the US is saving the people of Iraq who will be so much better off without Saddam and they will be oh so happy when we bring them freedom and democracy. All´s well that ends well. Well wrong again. There are still people dying every day in the Iraqi conflict. Even the US now admits that they completely misread the situation in Iraq and it is now entirely possible, maybe even likely that the Iraq will end up in civil war and the country will be run by warlords (infact this already seems to be the case) and the people of Iraq will infact be much worse off than they were before. This is a far cry from the happyness, freedom and wealth that the Iraqis were to be enjoying as a result of US action. If this is how it ends up who should be held responsible?
We were also told that there were ties between Saddam and Bin Laden. This also turned out to be a load of crap. Incredibly enough, it turns out that instead there are close ties between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family who are in the oil business together, a fact which still amazes me. What are we to make of this?
It is also disturbing to me that Bush and Putin seem to be getting rather friendly as they both proclaim to be fighting terrorism. To get Putin´s support the US is basically ignoring the situation the Chechens are facing which in my opinion is morally bankrupt. Consider that Russia is also making lots of noise lately about the plight of Russians living in Estonia and Latvia who are supposedly being discriminated against. Will Bush offer support when Russia invades Estonia to "protect" the Russian ethnic minority? Perhaps the world will be told that Estonia has ties to Bin Laden? Are we to believe that the fact that Iraq and Chechnya are oil rich countries have nothing to do with the actions of the US and Russia respectively in those countries?
No doubt many will now label me a US hater. I will go on the record now to say that I am still a BIG fan of the US. I believe that the world is much better off now then it would be if Russia had won the cold war and that there is much in the history of the US to be proud of. I also believe however the the current US administration is at best misguided and incompetent and at worst has been lying to the american people and to the world.
I believe that it is the duty of every patriotic american (and the duty of free people everywhere in the world) to question and criticize US policy (and the policies of any and every country) whenever they feel that this is in order, this is what freedom and democracy are all about. I believe is was Churchill who said something like (I can´t remember the exact quote) he always says only good things about his country when abroad but when at home it is his duty to criticize and question. This is something for those to think about who label everyone who dares to criticize a US hater.
I will also go on record to say that despite disagreeing with the author of this article I have great respect for him and his writings. It is dissapointing however that every article published in this paper about the US seems to sing it´s praises, no other point of view seems to be represented and this is unfortunate.
0
0I agree completely with this posting. The current US administration is morally bankrupt and incompetent. It constantly amazes me that the presidential election seems to be so close when it is so patently obvious that the current Bush administration has screwed up both its foreign policy and domestic econimic policy. Balanced reporting of these facts in Eesti Elu would also be a pleasant surprise.
0
0I may have misread the article being commented on. Where was the Bush administration praised? I saw the article referring to a pandemic view of antiamericanism, not who holds the White House. The article even said knee-jerk reaction to Bush - or whoever may hold the White House Or did I miss something that you caught? Or is this another form of "tõmblemine"?
Just curious as to how and why the gist of many articles ends up being misunderstood and commented upon in this forum......
Just curious as to how and why the gist of many articles ends up being misunderstood and commented upon in this forum......
0
0The actual Eric Margolis is a widely-recognized journalist with a point of view different from your own. Yet, you gratuitously use his name to broadcast a different message, one that he would take exception to. Your message may be correct, but you are broadcasting it in a shameful manner.
0
0My views ARE infact very similar to those of the very respected Mr. Margolis which is why I posted his words here and how you could possibly think that I am using his name to broadcast a message that he would take an exception to is beyond me considering that what I posted under his name was word for word an article that he recently wrote. I already explained that no of course I am not Eric Margolis, did you miss that? How many times must I repeat the obvious?
Perhaps you can explain yourself.
I was going to call you an idiot but then I decided that wouldn´t be polite.
Perhaps you can explain yourself.
I was going to call you an idiot but then I decided that wouldn´t be polite.
0
0Your English is appalling.
0
0You´re right, my English is not the best. Thankyou for your input. You´re not by any chance the same person who earlier posted under the name anonymouse are you?
I find it interesting that the only person who has so far commented on the CONTENT of what I wrote has agreed with me on issues. That is of course unless labelling me a long-winded, self-important, boring, Toronto Star reading NDP´er in need of psychatric help who needs to get a life can be considered commenting on the issues.
As far as the "phoney Eric Margolis" issue, I suggest you people get over it. I have already made it clear what are his words and what are mine. If you really feel that Margolis would not appreciate me trying to get more people to read his articles then maybe you really should contact him. At any rate if in the future I have the desire so share the views of Mr. Margolis with readers of this paper I will simply provide a link and those interested can read the official Toronto Sun copy of his article. Fair enough?
For the person who accused me of "gratuitously use his name to broadcast a different message, one that he would take exception to." - here is a link to the article that appeared in the Sun. This should satisfy you that what I posted under his name are indeed his words and not at all a "different message, one that he would take exception to".
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStan d/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/ 09/19/634925.html
I find it interesting that the only person who has so far commented on the CONTENT of what I wrote has agreed with me on issues. That is of course unless labelling me a long-winded, self-important, boring, Toronto Star reading NDP´er in need of psychatric help who needs to get a life can be considered commenting on the issues.
As far as the "phoney Eric Margolis" issue, I suggest you people get over it. I have already made it clear what are his words and what are mine. If you really feel that Margolis would not appreciate me trying to get more people to read his articles then maybe you really should contact him. At any rate if in the future I have the desire so share the views of Mr. Margolis with readers of this paper I will simply provide a link and those interested can read the official Toronto Sun copy of his article. Fair enough?
For the person who accused me of "gratuitously use his name to broadcast a different message, one that he would take exception to." - here is a link to the article that appeared in the Sun. This should satisfy you that what I posted under his name are indeed his words and not at all a "different message, one that he would take exception to".
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStan d/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/ 09/19/634925.html
0
0To provide a link to a web-site that reinforces your point is appropriate and something that you should have done in the first place.
If you step back and reflect, perhaps you'll see that you have provoked readers with aggression. In a space provided for responses to an editorial written in Estonian, you have insensitively dominated with lengthy editorials of your own. Inappropriately, they are written in ungrammatical, strident English which makes you appear stupid and fanatical. You seem to be surprised that there are people who think differently from yourself. You expect to change their minds with a harangue. Then you are shocked when they respond with jeers and suggestions that you are a self-important wind-bag, in need of mental therapy, and the like.
If you take a moment to reflect, you may realize that harangues are what we expect from harangue-o-tangues.
You have also denied us our Estonian-language commentary space. Please give it back.
If you step back and reflect, perhaps you'll see that you have provoked readers with aggression. In a space provided for responses to an editorial written in Estonian, you have insensitively dominated with lengthy editorials of your own. Inappropriately, they are written in ungrammatical, strident English which makes you appear stupid and fanatical. You seem to be surprised that there are people who think differently from yourself. You expect to change their minds with a harangue. Then you are shocked when they respond with jeers and suggestions that you are a self-important wind-bag, in need of mental therapy, and the like.
If you take a moment to reflect, you may realize that harangues are what we expect from harangue-o-tangues.
You have also denied us our Estonian-language commentary space. Please give it back.
0
0A high-school diploma should imply greater literacy than you have displayed.
To open a new subject for discussion: Should diplomas be awarded to harangue-o-tangues?
To open a new subject for discussion: Should diplomas be awarded to harangue-o-tangues?
0
0It would be very nice to know just what you are majoring in. When I last saw the curriculum, I didn't notice 'omniscience' as an option. Leaves me wondering what else might suit you. Not 'Estonian' obviously.
0
0Üsna tõhus kokkuvõte. Nõustun sellega ja ka arvan et aitab juba sellest koerusest.
0
0Why can't Eesti Elu print editorials which don't conform to your point of view?
0
0Who is your question directed to? I certainly have not noticed anyone suggesting what Eesti Elu can or can´t print though a few people have pointed out that coverage of the US has not been what one could call balanced.
Anyhow, no big deal, it´s not like Eesti Elu is the only paper available for reading. If Eesti Elu wants to only present one side of the story then that´s well within their rights even if it´s somewhat dissapointing.
Anyhow, no big deal, it´s not like Eesti Elu is the only paper available for reading. If Eesti Elu wants to only present one side of the story then that´s well within their rights even if it´s somewhat dissapointing.
0
0So, Eesti Elu prints editorials that "disappoint" you. In response you flood it with your spam.
I don't care who you are but, it would be interesting find out who it is that you think you are.
I don't care who you are but, it would be interesting find out who it is that you think you are.
0
0The first paragraph of the article refers to antiamericanism. Labelling people who criticize as antiamericans is to me de facto defence/praise of the Bush administration.
Did I make myself clear? Perhaps you don´t read this paper regularly? If you do then surely you have read MANY articles in the last few months about the US and the tone has been pretty much the same in all of them - the US is good, the US does no wrong, the US is unappreciated, blah blah blah, the term antiamericanism gets used constantly etc. Most of these articles that I´m referring to have been written by Mikiver. Naelapea seems to mostly share his views about the US though he thankfully writes about other things as well (and I enjoy his articles very much) as opposed to Mikiver who seems to write about 90% of his articles about the same subject and is getting to sound like a broken record.
I´m just so sick of this so called antiamericanism BS. Just answer anyone who questions or criticizes by saying - "you´re just antiamerican", it saves the trouble of actually having to discuss the issues which is oh so convenient.
Anyhow, I hope I have made myself clear. I certainly have not misunderstood the "gist" of these articles, there is just no way to do so. Perhaps there is no such thing as "antiamericanism". Perhaps there are simply many people who have a big problem with some of the things the US have done and have good reason to feel the say they do.
Did I make myself clear? Perhaps you don´t read this paper regularly? If you do then surely you have read MANY articles in the last few months about the US and the tone has been pretty much the same in all of them - the US is good, the US does no wrong, the US is unappreciated, blah blah blah, the term antiamericanism gets used constantly etc. Most of these articles that I´m referring to have been written by Mikiver. Naelapea seems to mostly share his views about the US though he thankfully writes about other things as well (and I enjoy his articles very much) as opposed to Mikiver who seems to write about 90% of his articles about the same subject and is getting to sound like a broken record.
I´m just so sick of this so called antiamericanism BS. Just answer anyone who questions or criticizes by saying - "you´re just antiamerican", it saves the trouble of actually having to discuss the issues which is oh so convenient.
Anyhow, I hope I have made myself clear. I certainly have not misunderstood the "gist" of these articles, there is just no way to do so. Perhaps there is no such thing as "antiamericanism". Perhaps there are simply many people who have a big problem with some of the things the US have done and have good reason to feel the say they do.
0
0Take it easy. There's no worry about being branded anti-american. The first words that pop into mind upon reading your comments are "self-important", "long-winded", "bore".
When are you going to say something that we haven't already read in the Toronto Star or heard from the NDP?
It's time to get a life. It's there waiting for you. Don't overlook our psychiatric services -- free in Ontario.
When are you going to say something that we haven't already read in the Toronto Star or heard from the NDP?
It's time to get a life. It's there waiting for you. Don't overlook our psychiatric services -- free in Ontario.
0
0"Self-important" is an apt word to describe the phoney Mr. Margolis because he obviously believes that it's acceptable to use the readers' response section of an Estonian newspaper for editorials of his own, written in English, using someone else's reputable name. I don't believe that the actual Eric Margolis would approve of the use of his name in this manner. Perhaps we should ask him?
Eesti Elu is a bilingual newspaper. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable that reponses to Estonian articles and editorials should similarly be in Estonian. That seems to be in corporated into the meaning of "Estonian newspaper". (At the moment I'm writing in English for the benefit of Mr. Self-Important.)Moreover, responses should be just that, not unsolicited editorials.
Editors, what is the meaning of "editorial control"?
Eesti Elu is a bilingual newspaper. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable that reponses to Estonian articles and editorials should similarly be in Estonian. That seems to be in corporated into the meaning of "Estonian newspaper". (At the moment I'm writing in English for the benefit of Mr. Self-Important.)Moreover, responses should be just that, not unsolicited editorials.
Editors, what is the meaning of "editorial control"?
0
0This interface adds spaces to the links at the of the lines in the comment space. If you remove the spaces in
NewsStan d
and in
2004/ 09/19/534925.html
it will work fine.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStan d/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/ 09/19/634925.html
NewsStan d
and in
2004/ 09/19/534925.html
it will work fine.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStan d/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/ 09/19/634925.html
0
0Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.
