I Loathe America, and what it has done to the rest of the world 

I knew that the wave of anti-Americanism that would swell up after the Iraq war would make me feel ill. And it has. It has made me much, much more ill than I had expected.My anti-Americanism has become almost uncontrollable. It has possessed me, like a disease. It rises up in my throat like acid reflux, that fashionable American sickness. I now loathe the United States and what it has done to Iraq and the rest of the helpless world. 

I can hardly bear to see the faces of Bush and Rumsfeld, or to watch their posturing body language, or to hear their self-satisfied and incoherent platitudes. The liberal press here has done its best to make them appear ridiculous, but these two men are not funny. 

I was tipped into uncontainable rage by a report on Channel 4 News about "friendly fire", which included footage of what must have been one of the most horrific bombardments ever filmed. But what struck home hardest was the subsequent image, of a row of American warplanes, with grinning cartoon faces painted on their noses. Cartoon faces, with big sharp teeth. 

It is grotesque. It is hideous. This great and powerful nation bombs foreign cities and the people in those cities from Disneyland cartoon planes out of comic strips. This is simply not possible. And yet, there they were.Others have written eloquently about the euphemistic and affectionate names that the Americans give to their weapons of mass destruction: Big Boy, Little Boy, Daisy Cutter, and so forth. 

We are accustomed to these sobriquets; to phrases such as "collateral damage" and "friendly fire" and "pre-emptive strikes". We have almost ceased to notice when suicide bombers are described as "cowards". The abuse of language is part of warfare. Long ago, Voltaire told us that we invent words to conceal truths. More recently, Orwell pointed out to us the dangers of Newspeak. 

But there was something about those playfully grinning warplane faces that went beyond deception and distortion into the land of madness. A nation that can allow those faces to be painted as an image on its national aeroplanes has regressed into unimaginable irresponsibility. A nation that can paint those faces on death machines must be insane.

There, I have said it. I have tried to control my anti-Americanism, remembering the many Americans that I know and respect, but I can't keep it down any longer. I detest Disneyfication, I detest Coca-Cola, I detest burgers, I detest sentimental and violent Hollywood movies that tell lies about history.I detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism about victories it didn't even win. 

On April 29, 2000, I switched on CNN in my hotel room and, by chance, saw an item designed to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war. The camera showed us a street scene in which a shabby elderly Vietnamese man was seen speaking English and bartering in dollars in a city that I took to be Ho Chi Minh City, still familiarly known in America by its old French colonial name of Saigon.

"The language of Shakespeare," the commentator intoned, "has conquered Vietnam." I did not note down the dialogue, though I can vouch for that sentence about the language of Shakespeare. But the word "dollar" was certainly repeated several times, and the implications of what the camera showed were clear enough.

The elderly Vietnamese man was impoverished, and he wanted hard currency. The Vietnamese had won the war, but had lost the peace.

Just leave Shakespeare and Shakespeare's homeland out of this squalid bit of revisionism, I thought at the time. Little did I then think that now, three years on, Shakespeare's country would have been dragged by our leader into this illegal, unjustifiable, aggressive war. We are all contaminated by it. Not in my name, I want to keep repeating, though I don't suppose anybody will listen. 

America uses the word "democracy" as its battle cry, and its nervous soldiers gun down Iraqi civilians when they try to hold street demonstrations to protest against the invasion of their country. So much for democracy. (At least the British Army is better trained.) 

America is one of the few countries in the world that executes minors. Well, it doesn't really execute them - it just keeps them in jail for years and years until they are old enough to execute, and then it executes them. It administers drugs to mentally disturbed prisoners on Death Row until they are back in their right mind, and then it executes them, too. 

They call this justice and the rule of law. America is holding more than 600 people in detention in Guantánamo Bay, indefinitely, and it may well hold them there for ever. Guantánamo Bay has become the Bastille of America. They call this serving the cause of democracy and freedom. 

I keep writing to Jack Straw about the so-called "illegal combatants", including minors, who are detained there without charge or trial or access to lawyers, and I shall go on writing to him and his successors until something happens. This one-way correspondence may last my lifetime. I suppose the minors won't be minors for long, although the youngest of them is only 13, so in time I shall have to drop that part of my objection, but I shall continue to protest. 

A great democratic nation cannot behave in this manner. But it does. I keep remembering those words from Nineteen Eighty-Four, on the dynamics of history at the end of history, when O'Brien tells Winston: "Always there will be the intoxication of power… Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

We have seen enough boots in the past few months to last us a lifetime. Iraqi boots, American boots, British boots. Enough of boots.I hate feeling this hatred. I have to keep reminding myself that if Bush hadn't been (so narrowly) elected, we wouldn't be here, and none of this would have happened. There is another America. Long live the other America, and may this one pass away soon.

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see 

American Administration Acknowledges Lies 

To all appearance, the Iraqi campaign will echo many times to the American president and his advisors, despite George W. Bush's optimism. It is not about the daily news about attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. The presidential election is coming and political opponents of the American president do not want to miss the chance to accuse Bush of lies, as it happened during the story with the Iraqi uranium, for example. 

As it is known, the main reason for the USA to launch the war in Iraq was Saddam Hussein's possession of the weapons of mass destruction. In addition to it, George W. Bush said in January of the current year, the British intelligence had the information about the fact of selling a considerable amount of uranium from African countries to Iraq. However, before the war started, UN inspectors doubted, whether the Iraqis were trying to develop the nuclear weapon. After the war was over, there was a letter found in the building, where Saddam's secret police had been housed. The letter was allegedly written by an intelligence officer of one of African countries, it was dated May 20th, 2001. As it was written in the letter, a spokesman for an African country was ready to sell uranium and other radioactive materials to Iraq. 

However, Iraq rejected the offer because of UN sanctions. To all appearance, the sanctions were rather efficient, if Iraqi officials explained their refusal with them. However, an African person was rather persistent: in his next letter he set out his readiness to return to the issue later. It is not known, how Iraqi officials reacted to that, though: either a part of the correspondence was destroyed during the bombardment and massive looting, or American special services did not want to expose it. 

Under the pressure of the society and the Congress regarding the circumstances that preceded the incursion in Iraq, the White House had to acknowledge certain manipulations that had been performed with facts. In other words, the US administration acknowledged its lies, trying to explain the need of the military force to overthrow Saddam's regime. 

For the time being, the American president has managed to get away with it. George W. Bush is rather popular among Americans, he may not react to his political opponents' attacks. However, what is going to happen in a year or so, when the pre-election campaign is in full swing? A high rating is an ephemeral thing, it needs to be constantly backed up. Will the presidential team manage to keep the rating on the present level, especially against the background of economic failures and losses in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

It is not ruled out that certain officials of the present American administration will be dismissed because of their mistakes in the preparation of the Iraqi campaign. There can be a lot of candidacies found already. Of course, George W. Bush treats Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's ideas with great sympathy, but there can be a lot of things done for the sake of the president's office. 

Turkey Disgusted with Americans 

Relations between Ankara and Washington have unexpectedly aggravated recently
This is said to be connected with an arrest of 11 Turkish servicemen by US military forces three days ago. It is reported that the people were plotting to assinate the governor of the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, a Kurd by nationality. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan had to settle the tension in relations between Turkey and the USA. The prime minister called actions of American military forces disgusting. On the whole, the situation looks rather strange indeed

It is a known fact that Turkey is carefully watching the actions of Kurds in northern Iraq. The slightest impression that an independent Kurd state is about to be created will immediately provoke a reaction from Turkish Kurds. Nevertheless, Ankara realizes perfectly well that interference in Iraqi affairs will irritate Washington. It is hardly likely that the US will let Turks liquidate disagreeable Kurd leaders, even those operating in Iraq. If the Turks were given such a right, this would entail unexpected consequences. Neither Washington nor the occupation administration want one more center of tension in Iraq. This means that further attempts of Ankara to interfere into affairs of Iraq's Kurdistan will be suppressed. 

However, it is not clear why the Turkish soldiers were released so quickly if the scandal was connected with elimination of the Kurd governor. This liberalism won't act in favour of the provisional administration in Iraq. So, there are two possible explanations of the situation. First, the Turkish soldiers didn't have a plan to eliminate the Kurd governor, they simply came to a place where they were not welcome. Second, a more probable explanation, is that Washington understood it shouldn't exasperate its NATO ally and make for wider popularity of Islamists (even rather moderate ones) headed by Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. The actions of the US are quite logical in this situation, as mass anti-American protest demonstrations have recently taken place in several Turkish cities. The only way to weaken the tension was to release the detained Turkish soldiers. What is more, there is no sense for the US Administration to spoil relations with Turkey. 

It is not for the first time that American forces have detained Turkish servicemen in Iraq. First incidents of this kind occurred during the military campaign in the country. Turkey gave up the idea of introducing the troops in Iraq only thanks to pressure exerted by Washington. To all appearances, even cessation of the hostilities and vacuum of authority in Iraq didn't put an end to Ankara's apprehensions of further unpredictable development of the Kurd problem. It is highly likely that Turkey will make more attempts to have an influence upon the situation in the adjoining country, the Kurd problem especially. This will inevitably entail more conflicts between Ankara and Washington on the problem. 

Expert blames Afghan instability on Pakistani & American Support to Warlords

Former NPR correspondent Sarah Chayes recently blamed tribal warlords for being the "single greatest threat" to a secure Afghanistan. Speaking at the Open Society Institute on May 9, Chayes warned that American and Pakistani cooperation with armed regional warlords exacerbated the fragility of post-Taliban Afghanistan.

"Warlords…are not allies of convenience in an effort to stamp out insecurity," said Chayes, a member of Afghans for Civil Society. "They are the single greatest threat to stability…It is in their interest that a certain level of instability exist." Chayes singled out Islamabad for its role in provoking Afghanistani unrest, saying Pakistani army officers worked in guerrilla training facilities near the southern Afghanistan border. She said it was an essential part of Pakistan’s foreign policy to "obstruct Afghanistan’s efforts at establishing some kind of viable statehood."

Chayes also criticized the United States’ cooperation with Afghanistani warlords as critically uninformed. By choosing to deal with some leaders rather than their competitors, she said, US military officers on the ground were essentially making policy by recognizing the legitimacy of certain tribal chiefs over others. "[T]hey weren’t trained to make policy," said Chayes, "they weren’t trained to be diplomats."

But, Chayes said, the US military is becoming more deliberate in their policy planning in Afghanistan. "They are listening," she said. "In Iraq, they should listen faster – not wait for a year and a half." Chayes also accused a regional governor of warlord activity for allowing Taliban members from Pakistan to cross into Afghanistan in the recent abduction of four Red Cross workers (one of whom was executed) outside Kandahar.

"There is no way 200 armed former Taliban could sneak into the province without someone knowing about it," she said.

Scandalous Person Might Become America’s President in 2004

It became known today that the first candidacy for the position of the American president has been officially registered. This person’s name is Al Sharpton. Democrats could hardly find a better gift for Republicans. This New York-based black lawyer and reverend is a very notorious persona. Sharpton is known as an organizer of demonstrations of black people to protest against local authorities. Those actions of protest often ended up in clashes with police. This allowed the new candidacy to touch upon the issue of the black population suppression in the United States.

Sharpton became famous as a lawyer. He was a spokesman for black teenage girl Tawana Brawley, after she claimed that she was gang-raped by white men. As it turned out later, Brawley made the story up, trying to make her parents not to punish her for being disobedient. Sharpton tried to do his best to intensify the relations between black and white people in order to gain the national attention. He even made Tawana Brawley lie during the trial. Sharpton and Brawley were eventually charged with slanderous comments, and Sharpton was ordered to pay $65 thousand.

Al Sharpton served several months in a federal jail for the organization of a protest action near an American Air Force base. The demonstration was over with a mass disorder. Despite all that, Sharpton managed to obtain the reputation of a fighter for the rights of disaffected people. However, a lot of American observers believed that the fact that he spent several months in a jail was something like his own promotion. For the time being, Al Sharpton (47 years old) tries to do his best in order to become more respectable. However, he still plays the game of a fighter for the rights of disaffected voters. As he says, there are too many white rich men amid those candidacies that run for presidency. Sharpton believes that those men do not have any notion of what common people and national minorities need. He says that more than 100 million people might vote for him – blacks, Latinos, and youth.

"Are you tired of American Football, Basketball, and Baseball?" So are Mexicans

The World Cup in Japan and Korea will remain in history as the champion of surprises. The American team gave another surprise at the 1/8 finals today. The Mexicans did not have one defeat in the group tournament, but now they have to pack their suitcases and home. However, the American team is advances; it is already listed as one of the eight strongest teams of the world. The result of the match between the USA and Mexico is 2:0; the goals were scored by Brian McBride (the eighth minute) and by Landon Donovan (the 65th minute).

It seems that the Mexicans could not even imagine such a development, taking into consideration the fact that the teams of Mexico and America had already played with each other. The Americans were successful with their first attack. US captain Claudio Reyna ran down the right flank and passed the ball to the center of the penalty area. McBride was alone there, and he scored a goal with precision. The Mexicans were dispirited: they did not at all expect anything like this. They improved a bit later, but it was very hard for them to score even one goal: American goalkeeper Friedel was immaculate. Ernandes and Blanco missed two very good moments for attacking the Americans, but the goalkeeper saved the team again.

This scenario continued after the break: The Mexicans controlled the ball, but the Americans controlled the game, and the score doubled in the middle of the second half as a result of the flank counterattack again. This time, the goal was scored by US forward Landon Donovan. Therefore, America gained not only a goal, but a very good game as well. US coach Bruce Arena succeeded with the help of the tactical advantage. American players looked more mobilized; they had more victory spirit in comparison with the Mexicans.

Therefore, there are two dark horses in the top eight of the strongest teams of the world: Senegal and the USA. The hosts of the championship, the Koreans, intend to win the game with the Italians, believing that they are not stronger than the Portuguese, so maybe the Koreans will join Senegal and America in the nearest future as well.

The South Korean team plays tomorrow, and the USA plays on June 21 in the quarter-finals with Germany. America's highest achievement in the history of World Cups was registered back in 1930, when the squad entered the semi-finals.

The BBC reported that American President George Bush contacted his Mexican colleague Vicente Fox before the game and expressed his hope that the strongest team would have the honor to be the winner. Bush was definitely talking about the American team, taking into consideration the fact that the Americans won their last four games against the Mexicans, including the game in the selection stage of the World Cup. Fox thanked Prophet Bush on his part.

How to Spell American Empire: B-u-r-d-e-n

Do you want America to be an imperial power? A colonial controller of other countries and their resources? Do you yearn to take up the white man's burden? Some Americans do, and their voices are being heard in high places. And so, even if you're not white, get ready to take up some imperial burden.

The Bush Doctrine - the idea of pre-emptive striking, of nation-building and re-building - which is about to be tried in Iraq, has been germinating for the past decade in think tanks and thin magazines. The "neoconservatives" who dominate Bush foreign-policy making are, in fact, neocolonialists.

That was the point of a cover story in the Dec. 14 National Journal, a normally nerdy Washington publication that declared, "The Empire Strikes Back: As America asserts its supremacy around the globe, long-shunned words such as 'imperialism' and 'empire' are no longer taboo." As UCLA economist Deepak Lal told the magazine, "Empires have unfairly got a bad name."

Many others agree. In 2002, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations published a book, "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power," which offered a happy history of U.S. expansion overseas, notably in Latin America. Lest anybody miss his pro-empire point, the title phrase, "savage wars of peace" is borrowed from an 1899 poem by Rudyard Kipling - the same work that gave the world the immortal saying, "white man's burden." The burden, as Kipling saw it, was for the white race to keep watch over, "New-caught sullen peoples/Half devil and half child."

Eventually, of course, the natives learned to fight back; the story of the last century was de-colonization. But now, re-colonization is back. Two weeks ago, The New York Times magazine weighed in with an imperialism cover story. Its title, too, was an homage to Kipling: "The Burden."

Sept. 11 has let loose another wave of white men wanting to go overseas, not just to avenge the attacks, but to remake the world. Indeed, some seem to revel in the trappings of burden-bearing and world-remaking. Early in the fight against the Taliban, Boot wrote in The Weekly Standard, "Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets." Is Boot an extreme case in his enthusiasm for Kiplingesque policies? Maybe not.

Of course, some say that colonialism wasn't about burdening white people, but rather, ripping off brown people. Maybe such folks are thinking of James Woolsey, the former CIA director who is now a member of the Bush administration's Defense Policy Board. Explaining why other countries should join the U.S. coalition for "regime change" in Iraq, Woolsey said in September, "It's pretty straightforward. France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

Todd Buchholz, an official in the first Bush administration, went further. Writing in The Wall Street Journal last month, he urged pulling a post-Hussein Iraq out of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, thus cutting the price of oil in half. That scenario might sound great for American motorists, but it's also a textbook example of blood-for-oil imperialism.

President George W. Bush, of course, denies any predatory intentions. He is determined, he says, to spread "democracy." But if the mission is so wonderful, then one might think more Bush Doctrineers would be eager to don their country's uniform. They might be inspired by the precedent of Theodore Roosevelt, who was 39 years old when he resigned from a cushy government job and volunteered to lead troops into combat in 1898. Yet today, there's been no equivalent rush of neo-colonialists into the ranks.

That's why, as Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has suggested, restoring the military draft would be a good idea. Mandatory service might not pluck many armchair warriors from their soft stations, but it might scoop up a few of their sons. And so the neocolonialists could share, indirectly, in the burden they seek to impose on the rest of America.

Two Skits of George W. Bush

Conditions under which North Korea was added to the notorious “axis of evil” a year ago resembled an untalented skit. Karen Hughes, then presidential aide for public relations cold have highly likely mentioned not Pyongyang, but Bhutan or Pakistan among the countries included into the “axis of evil.” In fact, it made no difference for George W. Bush which country to bomb and to curse before the Congress; he just wanted a war to be permanent. 

As it turned later, Pyongyang was rather inconvenient for the USA as a member of the “axis of evil”, as it actually upset Washington’s plans. This is the reason why Karen Hughes, so much devoted to George W. Bush, had to quit the post; however, other PR advisors devoted to the US president invented another “skit” in a year: they blamed North Korea for making fake dollars and for drug production. So, the substantiation of the doctrine appeared in a year after the doctrine itself was formed.

Former speech-writer of George W. Bush, David Frum explained the president’s inclination to misanthropy in his memoirs under the title The Right Man: “Every morning he wakes up with the realization that it is going to be another day without a single jigger.” Due to this book the world learnt about the details of making the “axis of evil.”

As it turns out, by the moment the “axis of evil” appeared, Bush was ready for another (after Afghanistan) mass execution. He asked his speech-writer David Frum to make up a speech to be delivered in the Congress; the speech must reveal a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The speech-writer suggested the phrase “axis of hatred”, on the analogy of the Nazis’ “axis” of WWII. At that very moment National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was in the room close to the US president. She said: “Axis sounds good, David, but now Iran is important for us, insert Iran instead of al-Qaeda.” Karen Hughes, in her turn added that in addition to the two elements of the axis, there must be one more member, like the axis of WWII (Berlin – Rome – Tokyo). George W. Bush understood that some third country must be added to the new “axis”, but couldn’t choose which one. Finally, he preferred Pyongyang’s regime.

So, this is the way how the peculiarity of Bush’s speech was composed, as if George W. Bush was inventing a skit. On January 29, 2002 the three countries belonging to the “axis of evil” and picked out for execution were officially announced in the Congress. North Korea was included into the black list as a result of the ill fate, or because of Hughes’ erudition, rather unfavorable for North Korea. If the US public relations advisor had mentioned some other countries instead of North Korea, Kim Jong-il together with South Korea President Kim Dae Jung would have been currently busy with joining of railway and main roads and would be creating a free economic zone in Sinuiju following the Chinese model. George W. Bush himself would have felt much better as well.

In several months, “the nuclear problem of North Korea” arose. It is a paradox: all neighbors (South Korea, Russia, China, Japan and other remote countries as well) ask America and North Korea to become reconciled. At that, America is asked to change the intention to deliver a blow against North Korea and North Korea is asked to give up the nuclear missile programs. The strong USA is ready to say YES, while small North Korea repeats its NO. Isn’t it an absurdity? It is not quite an absurdity, judging by the remark of Madeleine Albright who called the speech of George W. Bush of January 29 a mistake, “as it justifies North Korea’s statements saying about the threat from the USA.” Ex-president of the USA Jimmy Carter said that it would take many years to compensate the damage caused by this statement of President Bush.

There are lots of paradoxes. Here is another one: half of the authors of “the axis of evil” doctrine will have to celebrate the doctrine’s first anniversary outside the White House. Speech-writer Frum resigned in February; the American mass media reported that he had to do so because of his wife’s talkativeness: she published a message on the Internet saying that is was her husband who invented the “axis of evil.” Karen Hughes, so much devoted to George W. Bush, had to quit the post in April. Karen Hughes got involved into the discussion concerning the “axis of evil” a year ago, and consequences of it can be described with the words of a Russian classical writer “We did the best, you see the rest”. She did more harm than good to her idol George W. Bush and resigned without complaints. A journalist asked the advisor in her parting interview: “You were the star in the Washington administration. What will the president do without you?” Karen Hughes’ reply was: “It is the president who is the star.”

Yes, Kim Jong-il is an inconvenient part of the “axis of evil.” From the point of view of the Bush doctrine, it would be OK if Kim Jong-il followed the example of Iran that now doesn’t even dare to say protests against US’s attack at Iraq. However, the North Korean leader doesn’t pretend that nothing extraordinary had happened on January 29 last year. On the contrary, he decided to use his “frozen” trump cards, the nuclear and missile developments in embryo, in order to obtain guarantees of security for the country.

Some of North Korea’s actions may seem funny, for instance, the ban for dollar circulation in the country or some too reckless threats. To tell the truth, humility to the aggressor and attempts to ignore America’s spits in the face look much funnier and certainly sadder. North Korea’s intractability also ruined George W. Bush’s plans concerning Iraq; the US president has to face problems with obtainment of maximal support to a prospective attack at Iraq. Despite the boasts of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saying that the USA “can wage two wars at the same time”, it’s inconvenient for the USA to start military operations in the Far East at the time when the US troops are concentrated in the Persian Gulf region. America would like to hush up the scandal with North Korea for some time at least. For this very reason the second skit was invented: it was reported that North Korea made fake dollars and produced drugs, but the information had no sufficient evidence. What is more, the information was dated for the visit of Russian special presidential envoy Alexander Losyukov to Pyongyang.

Bush Junior will meet the same fate as his Father

Results of the poll on Bush’s popularity recently held among the American population have become the most outstanding event over the past two days. The poll revealed that Bush’s rating has slipped: a week ago his job was approved by 63% of the questioned, and this week the showing is 58%. The rating is down 5 points from a week ago, it is about the same his father had 12 years ago. 

The changing in President Bush’s job approval entailed lots of lively comments saying that the incumbent president may share his father’s fate. Many years ago, George Bush also paid too much attention to Saddam Hussein and almost completely disregarded the economic situation in the country. As a result, he had to quit the post after the first period of presidency. 

The situation seems to be repeating once again. Many Americans are dissatisfied with the economic policy of the incumbent administration. Democrats openly accuse the White House of the unfavorable results of the taxation reform carried out by the Bush Administration: as a result of the reform, the poor are getting even poorer, and the rich grow richer. 

It is also remarkable that George W. Bush is also gradually losing the support of Republican activists. But they are displeased not with the taxation reform, but with the White House’s position toward Iraq and North Korea. For instance, The Washington Times Editor-in-Chief Wesley Pruden blamed the US president for the policy of appeasement toward Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il. And this is despite the fact that George W. Bush has been dreaming to do away with the Iraqi dictator for several months already and has put much effort to assure the world community of Saddam’s extremely malicious nature! Kim Jong-il with his nuclear program is rather inappropriate in the situation. 

To all appearances, the White House actually didn’t expect North Korea would throw down such a strong challenge (some western analysts say that China is involved here, as it is scheming some game with the USA). 

However that may be, Washington hasn’t yet recovered from the knock-down delivered by North Korea’s statement saying that it was ready to keep on working on its nuclear program. It won’t be that easy to order to bring a couple of aircraft carriers to the North Korean shores. What may happen if North Korea already has a nuclear bomb of its own? By the way, opinion of the states situated in the region must be taken into consideration as well: they don’t want any war. 

This is the reason why American diplomats currently have to make so many visits to the capitals of Far Eastern states. Meanwhile, Bush’s rating is slipping down, which certainly makes his supporters displeased. Member of the National Republican Committee Mathew Dode says it is more important for republicans to find out whether the results of the poll reveal a long-term tendency. Otherwise they will have to find some other candidate to the post, until it’s not too late. 

The Dark Descent

The saying “Each nation has such rulers that it deserves” is very popular in Asia. The saying is often repeated with variations here. However, we would like to speak not about Asia, but about the USA in this publication. 

To all appearances, the above mentioned saying fully concerns the present-day United States of America. The country which is so much proud of its democracy has never been completely democratic in fact. No doubt, any American citizen can appeal to court in case if his rights are violated and may try to defend his rights. And Americans awfully like to resort to this measure. The same can be said about freedom of press, everybody knows the Watergate case. There are lots of examples to this statement, including the notorious political correctness that sometimes goes to absurdity. 

However, everything has its limits, even the American democracy. A comical incident occurred in the airport of San Jose the other day. A couple was arrested there for the protest against turning the USA into a police state. According to CNN, a San Jose airport security officer checking baggage discovered an item resembling an explosive device in a bag belonging to the couple. When the bag was opened, the security officer found a box with the inscription: “Congratulations to the marionette who has opened the bag. You’ve just taken a step toward turning the free country into a Fascist police state.” The officer didn’t appreciate the joke and sent the couple to a detention ward. Now the people have all possible prospects to become “martyrs” for the triumph of the civil law. 

Joking aside, elements of a so-called “police state” seem to be gaining a wide popularity in the USA. The authorities traditionally explain that these measures are necessary for security of the people. Majority of Americans approve of such measures, as they believe that they are actually cared for. 

In fact, this case proves not strength, but weakness of the state. There is no guarantee that general searches, bugging of telephone conversations and registration of all foreigners coming to the country are a safe protection from more terrorism acts. It’s rather vice versa, as resourcefulness of terrorism acts organizers needs no advertising indeed. So, finally, American citizens find themselves between the hammer and the anvil: there is the state with its care on the one hand, and terrorists, drug dealers on the other hand. 

Certainly, some part of the American society (this is a considerable part, by the way) realizes perfectly well that the US Administration is following a rather dangerous way. However, protests of these people are always ignored. Average citizens are too scared with the 9/11 tragic events to think that democracy may vanish without a trace. To tell the truth, majority of Americans never thought about their rights and freedoms, they were quite satisfied with their comfortable material well-being. 

At the same time, many Americans dislike when someone criticizes actions of American authorities, especially when the criticism goes from foreigners. To tell the truth, the situation is very simple: within several decades the USA popularized “the advantages of the American mode of living”, they first of all meant the achievements in the sphere of human rights. Isn’t it the time for Americans to pay attention to events going on in their country? This would be more effective than obtrusive propaganda