There was very little that Ayn Rand, that unapologetic capitalist philosopher, had in common with those “screeching hippies,” as she called them, but she did agree with one point: She too opposed the war in Vietnam.

The reasons she gave for this opposition are quite illustrative for delineating the difference between that war and the current war with Iraq. It demonstrates why those who now oppose the war are wrong, and why this war is not only right, but necessary.

The gist of Rand’s argument was the Vietnam War was waged on the basis of an abstract principle, and not on the basis of the true self interest of the United States.

In a certain sense it was the world’s first altruistic war in that this country sought to do for another people what they could not do for themselves.

It sought to prevent its people from falling under communism and not for any direct interest of the United States. There was no danger to this country of an attack by Vietnam and there were no natural resources or interests which were worth spending American lives.

Much after the fact rationalization justifying the validity of the Vietnam War centers around the fact much of South East Asia subsequently fell to communism, culminating in the horrendous massacres in Cambodia by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. The assertion is that if Vietnam had not fallen to the communists then Cambodia wouldn’t have either, but this is the fallacy of Hypothesis Contrary to Fact — since Cambodia did in fact fall, Cambodia may have fallen to communism anyway, Vietnam’s fall notwithstanding.

For Rand, the only thing that was important was whether or not it was in the self interest of the United States to fight such a war. Since there was no such strategic self interest, she deemed the war wrong. Aside from perhaps another tourist destination for Americans, there was no loss to this nation because of the failure of the Vietnam War. There was nothing concrete to gain in winning. Our eventual victory of the Cold War validated this view.

Using similar criteria, the same cannot be said to be true about the Iraq war. There is a direct self interest, on many levels, for this nation to engage in this war. And while the president is also making the mistake of justifying this war upon the premise of freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, the same error as in the Vietnam conflict, the truth is this is a secondary consideration. The real reason is the threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime directly pose to this nation.

The attacks on Sept. 11th were more than just an attack upon the United States. The reason that the World Trade Center was specifically chosen for attack, in 2001 and in the decade before that, was because the towers represented the heart of capitalism. Since freedom and capitalism are mutually inclusive, Sept. 11th was not merely an attack upon our nation, but upon our way of life. We shouldn’t ignore the symbolism that those who seek to destroy us so carefully chose. In the first truck bomb attack upon the Twin Towers the two main plotters carried Iraqi passports.

In fact, there have been a long series of such attacks going back many years. These attacks did not take place in a vacuum and could only have taken place with the tacit support of many countries. This support is both underground and above ground in an extensive web that is centered in the Islamic Mid East. That the government of Iraq is part of that support is not debated or debatable. That not all of this support is direct support for Al-Qaida doesn’t invalidate the fact that such support poses a direct threat to the safety of the citizens of this nation, because it is support for terrorism.

Saddam Hussein has openly given $25,000 gifts to the families of the suicide murderers in Palestine, so how much more must his invisible support be? The Iraqis involved in the first WTC truck bomb attack and the eleven Iraqis arrested in Kuwait as part of the assassination attempt on former Pres. Bush, are just further indications of that support.

That Iraq cannot be directly tied to the attacks on Sept. 11 is not the issue. The fact is that there is a spectrum of anti-capitalist, anti-American terrorist networks spread throughout the Muslim world. It is this network that this nation must address and deal with and this is where the war with Iraq comes in. All terrorism is a threat to every American, not just Al-Qaida — all terrorism — of which Iraq, if only a part, is a major player.

Since this nation has actually been under attack for many years, we have been, in fact, at war. It is not a war of our choosing. It wasn’t a war we even recognized until recently. Many Americans though have already died in this war. We just woke up to this fact because the events that took place on Sept. 11th violently shook us awake.

The Achilles Lauro, Flight 103 exploding over Lockerbie Scotland, the dozens of hijackings over the decades, the attack on the Cole, to the murders of William Buckley and Daniel Pearl are just a sample of the list. The full list is horrendous. (A more complete list can be found here: https://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb2002/0202terror.html)

We only have two options here: To do nothing or to take actions to preclude further attacks. For many years we have done nothing in response to previous attacks and the terrorists have only become more emboldened, culminating in the attacks on Sept. 11th with substantial loss of life. But that was only because we overlooked the deaths of those who have already died in this terrorist war and did virtually nothing in response. The Facts of Israel Web site noted that 800 Americans have already died at the hands of terrorism. Others say there are more. (https://www.factsofisrael.com/load.php?p=https://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000367.html)

Those who oppose the war with Iraq note that there is no clear connection between Saddam Hussein’s regime, the attacks on Sept. 11th, and Al-Qaida. This is a fallacy because this is not a war of retribution against the events that took place on Sept. 11th or even Al-Qaida. This is a war against all terrorism. Many American lives have been lost to terrorist attacks by other groups and associations other than Al-Qaida. It is all terrorism that is at war with us and to which we must respond.

Iraq is a terrorist nation. Iraq openly supports Palestinian terrorism. Iraq has sponsored terrorist training camps within its borders for many years. Iraq attacked Kuwait. Iraq gassed the Kurds, part of its own nation. Iraq has murdered countless numbers of its own people and others. If Iraq’s leaders are not stopped now, they will doubtless murder countless more of their own citizens and others. Some of those murdered will be Americans.

Iraq is not the only terrorist nation, true. This is not the point though. This war is a wake up call for all the terrorist world: We will tolerate you no more. Attack America at your peril. To return to Rand’s prescription of a just war, there is much to gain by this war. First in response to the complaint of the anti-war protesters, “No blood for oil!” Well, even if this were true it would fall within Rand’s definition of a “just war.” We have a commodity to gain, but the actual picture is bigger than this.

This nation has been repeatedly attacked and if we do nothing, will be attacked again. More Americans will die. Either we fight back and disarm our enemy, or we sit back and await more attacks. This is where the element of true self interest comes in. If we want to remain a free nation, a capitalist nation, then we must act in that self interest: We must fight for our freedom. We must take the fight to wherever terrorism is, or it will come to us. This has already been proven.

The first purpose of the Federal Government is to protect its citizens from external attack. This purpose has long been neglected in the area of terrorism. We paid a horrific price on Sept. 11th for this neglect, but have been paying it for long before that. We are just beginning to make up for this now. We simply have no choice if we wish to see capitalism survive and terrorism end. As the terrorists made clear by attacking the World Trade Center, it is either/or. It is either them or us, there is no middle ground.

Afghanistan, Iraq and Al-Qaida are just the beginning. This war with Iraq is a message to all the other nations of the world, purge yourself of terrorist elements or you will face the same fate. Thus we must fight this war. If we don’t, we can expect to see further events that make Sept. 11th look like a warm up. And it is in my own self interest, and that of every U.S. citizen to see this doesn’t happen. Otherwise anyone of us could be the next victim to die at the hands of terrorists.

When that day comes one won’t find the anti-war appeasers on the front line saying, “Oh, kill me first. My opposition to war made you possible.”

They can never be that honest with themselves. The pity is they cannot see they are abandoning their own best self interest and their nation’s own best interest, in favor of an abstract principle. Some people just never learn, or just don’t want to.

”’Don Newman is a free-lance writer living in Waikiki. He can be reached via email at:”’ newmand001@hawaii.rr.com

Waves upon waves of the newspaper’s editorial writers/interns provide a very disturbing picture of what this publication/organization thinks is its purpose/prerogative in the great scheme of information processing and distribution. Last week, one editorial writer was trying to convince us there is no difference between “the foulest vulgarity in bold letters” and “Honk If You Love America.”

This week’s offering, at: https://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/23/op/op11a.html
proclaims that even if it were true that Hawaii is a safer place than most of the rest of the country/world, we should not make that information be widely known. The convoluted thinking is that if it is widely known that Hawaii is in fact a safer place than most, rather than people being attracted here and its residents feeling justifiably less anxious and fearful, that information might lead to Hawaii becoming an even greater/more tempting target for terrorists — and on and on we plummet further into this writer’s paranoia, reverse-thinking, triple-second guessing, endless speculations, etc. — of people with too much time on their hands and no idea of purpose anymore other than to create another needless controversy and argument.

The reason we have competent and responsible people at the leadership of government is to make these judgments — so as to allay the need for every person to make these assessments for themselves, usually with a lot less information, often in fact, with no other information but in reading op-ed pieces and then rewriting them with a minor variation on the theme and buzzwords of the day. A fact is a fact — and that some self-appointed dictator of the information channels feels/is apprehensive that it could be used in the sick ways sick minds can conceive, undermines the whole integrity of information in the first place. We have to start off with just the facts — and not with all the manipulations and distortions of edited/suppressed information.

Although frequent mention is made of Hawaii’s vulnerability because of its dependence on tourism as its leading industry, almost no mention is made that international, national and local security and defense is probably a close second. Because of its truly unique strategic location and position, we really are an exceptional place — well justified by the facts. The criminal/terrorist mind is not entirely stupid; they look for the situation of greatest opportunity and ease of attack. Why pick on a place that is synonymous with military presence and preparedness? — and where the citizenry overwhelmingly supports and respects these workers.

The peculiarity of a predominantly service oriented economy/society is that the people are attentive, friendly, trusting and cooperative. That is the very nature of their business and therefore, personalities and culture. That is who we are and what we share openly and willingly with all the people of the world. Now for this editorial writer to say we should be more anxious, more fearful, less informed so that they can sell more newspapers, giving him more job security, influence over elected leaders, etc., one must ask, is the work of such individuals, productive or counterproductive? And is any of the other information similarly edited/suppressed by such “well-intentioned” oligarchs? — or are we seeing everything there is?

Isn’t that the conflict at this time?

”’Mike Hu is a resident of Honolulu and can be reached at:”’ mailto:humikhu@aol.com

For all people around the world regardless of their race, religion or political affiliation, the basic and foremost requirement for happy living is being healthy, as nothing can be achieved without a healthy body. To prevent disease and pursue health, appropriate medical care is a universally acknowledged basic human right and is the most important task of every government. On the global level, due to the fact that people and goods move around more quickly than ever before in this fast-paced world, global disease prevention has become an important issue and international cooperation is the key to safeguarding our living environment. It was for this cause that the World Health Organization, was established in 1948 with the objective of “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health” and with the mission to coordinate worldwide efforts to achieve that objective.

The Republic of China had been a full and active member of the WHO for 24 years and had made substantial contributions to the fulfillment of the organization’s objectives until 1972, when Taiwan had to withdraw itself from all the international organizations, including the WHO, because of Mainland China’s political pressure. Though isolated from the world health arena, Taiwan has made great achievements in healthcare through the concerted efforts of the government and people. For example, Taiwan has worked toward the eradication of malaria, rabies, plague, the prevention of black-foot disease and arsenic poisoning, the setting up of a general medical network and an emergency medical network; and, above all, the implementation of the National Health Insurance Program.

What’s more, Taiwan has reached out a helping hand to the world as well. For example, last August, when upon learning that the State of Chuuk of the Federal States of Micronesia was seriously hit by a typhoon, the Tzu-Chi Foundation, a worldwide non-profit, charitable organization based in Taiwan, and its Honolulu Chapter in cooperation with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Honolulu, immediately donated tons of medical supplies and services. This deed was highly recognized by the United Nation’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and was reported on their Web site. Furthermore, last December, Taiwan donated $1 million to the United Nations Foundation to join the global fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. That is the reason why U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledges Taiwan as a “success story,” and as a generous contributor to the international community.

Apart from its health achievements, Taiwan has also been recognized for its successful economic development, democratization and globalization. It has received well-known accolades throughout the world, such as being one of the four “Asian Dragons” and the “Taiwan Experience.” Through the hard work of its 23 million diligent people, Taiwan is now an outstanding example of democracy and economy. It has the 16th largest economy and is the 14th largest trading nation in the world. What’s more, Taiwan is a major transport hub linking northeast and southwest Asia. In the year 2002, Taiwan registered 7.85 million outbound travelers and 2.19 million inbound visitors. The fact that Taiwan is excluded from the WHO is not only contrary to the universality principle of the WHO, but also creates a vital gap in the global disease prevention network.

Recently, the outbreak of an unknown disease being called “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome,” or SARS, described as an “atypical pneumonia,” has killed several people in China, Hong Kong and Vietnam. The WHO has issued a worldwide emergency travel alert and said that there have been reports of more than 150 suspected new cases. Taiwan’s immediate participation in the WHO is now more critical than ever, because Taiwan’s geographical location, along with its advanced medical research facilities, creates a perfect niche to help identify, prevent, and eradicate this deadly disease.

Taiwan is now a formal member of the World Trade Organization and has joined APEC as an “economic entity.” Given the fact that Taiwan has a resilient economy, a vibrant democracy and possesses its own quarantine and health inspection systems that would help to achieve the objectives stipulated by the WHO Constitution, Taiwan certainly can be regarded as a “health entity” and therefore qualified to join the WHO as an observer.

It is our hope to call your attention, dear friends of the state of Hawaii, to urge China to consider the health, well-being, and prosperity of the people on Taiwan. Do not let political discord affect the most basic, humanitarian need for Taiwan. Health is a “Sans Fronti

LOS ANGELES, March 24 (UPI) — Michael Moore’s anti-war, anti-Bush tirade was one of the more watchable moments at the 75th Academy Awards — but whether it changed minds is another question.

The telecast would have been memorable on its own merits for its elegant celebration of 75 years of Oscars history. It was always meant to be a celebration of the best of an art form, but it turned out more like a test of the tensile strength of our civility.

Like so many family celebrations that have been marred by the contentious behavior of “certain people,” the Academy Awards diamond jubilee may well be more lamented than fondly recalled. Members of the academy community will no doubt console one another with reminders that the ceremony showed uncommon grace under a set of pressures that would not have applied during peacetime.

But with the world stage dominated by war and dissidence, the Oscars came to be seen by large numbers of Americans as, at worst, in bad taste or, at best, irrelevant.

The show began life as a balancing act. Producer Gil Cates kept his fingers crossed that the talent would stay with the spirit of the evening, but he always understood that it was impossible to sanitize the expressions of winners on the Oscar stage.

He simply hoped to avoid the indecorous.

Best Supporting Actor winner Chris Cooper was the first to say something from the podium on the subject of war and peace.

“In light of all the trouble in this world, I wish us all peace,” said Cooper.

While Cooper and others offered reflective, gentle reminders of the importance of peace, Moore shook up the joint.

“We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president,” said Moore. “We have a man who is leading us to war for fictitious reasons. We’re against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you.”

By some accounts, Moore got a standing ovation and a few boos. Others reported that he was booed off the stage.

Actually, he was played off the stage by Music Director Bill Conti. Winners were permitted 45 seconds of free speech, and his ration was used up.

A reporter backstage asked Moore why he took off on Bush during his acceptance speech.

“I’m an American,” said Moore.

“That’s it?” asked the reporter.

“That’s a lot,” said Moore. “You don’t leave your citizenship when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theatre.”

Moore insisted that America has been hijacked “and there’s a squatter on federal land” at the White House.

“We need to reclaim our country,” he said. “I love my country. I love democracy.”

Moore would get an argument on that from Thomas Bond, the head of Biograph Motion Pictures in Hollywood. He called Moore’s remarks anti-American.

“I have no problems with opinions,” said Bond, “but last night’s outburst by Moore was sickening and uncalled for. I am very supportive of all views, but not derogatory rantings, especially when Americans are dying and being tortured as we speak. I am very happy he was booed off stage by rational people in the entertainment industry.”

Bond would get an argument from Moore on that last point.

“Don’t report that there was a split decision in the hall because five wild people booed,” Moore admonished reporters backstage.

Moore specializes in populist expressions, such as his demand that the U.S. military withdraw its troops from ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News. The Oscar speech was not the first time he took off on Bush.

He gave roughly the same speech one day earlier in Santa Monica, when “Bowling for Columbine” won for best documentary at the IFP Independent Spirit Awards. Actually, Moore has been challenging the legitimacy of the Bush presidency since the 2000 election.

His major opus in this regard is “Stupid White Men: And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation.”

The book is loaded with statistical evidence supporting many of Moore’s arguments against Bush. In the book, Moore also calls Bush names — such as “thief-in-chief” and “idiot-in-chief.”

Moore’s statistical content has been called into question by numerous critics. The name-calling is subjective, and therefore open to endless argument about its accuracy — but name-calling seems not to contribute in a constructive way to serious discussions about crucial issues.

Moore supports his case by pointing out that the book is the best-selling nonfiction book in America over the past year. But if he is going to use sales figures to argue for the legitimacy of a political argument, he would have to concede that Bernard Goldberg’s “Bias” and Ann Coulter’s anti-liberal best-sellers have just as much merit as “Stupid White Men.”

It’s doubtful that Moore would carry populism quite that far.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

LOS ANGELES, March 24 (UPI) — Michael Moore’s anti-war, anti-Bush tirade was one of the more watchable moments at the 75th Academy Awards — but whether it changed minds is another question.

The telecast would have been memorable on its own merits for its elegant celebration of 75 years of Oscars history. It was always meant to be a celebration of the best of an art form, but it turned out more like a test of the tensile strength of our civility.

Like so many family celebrations that have been marred by the contentious behavior of “certain people,” the Academy Awards diamond jubilee may well be more lamented than fondly recalled. Members of the academy community will no doubt console one another with reminders that the ceremony showed uncommon grace under a set of pressures that would not have applied during peacetime.

But with the world stage dominated by war and dissidence, the Oscars came to be seen by large numbers of Americans as, at worst, in bad taste or, at best, irrelevant.

The show began life as a balancing act. Producer Gil Cates kept his fingers crossed that the talent would stay with the spirit of the evening, but he always understood that it was impossible to sanitize the expressions of winners on the Oscar stage.

He simply hoped to avoid the indecorous.

Best Supporting Actor winner Chris Cooper was the first to say something from the podium on the subject of war and peace.

“In light of all the trouble in this world, I wish us all peace,” said Cooper.

While Cooper and others offered reflective, gentle reminders of the importance of peace, Moore shook up the joint.

“We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president,” said Moore. “We have a man who is leading us to war for fictitious reasons. We’re against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you.”

By some accounts, Moore got a standing ovation and a few boos. Others reported that he was booed off the stage.

Actually, he was played off the stage by Music Director Bill Conti. Winners were permitted 45 seconds of free speech, and his ration was used up.

A reporter backstage asked Moore why he took off on Bush during his acceptance speech.

“I’m an American,” said Moore.

“That’s it?” asked the reporter.

“That’s a lot,” said Moore. “You don’t leave your citizenship when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theatre.”

Moore insisted that America has been hijacked “and there’s a squatter on federal land” at the White House.

“We need to reclaim our country,” he said. “I love my country. I love democracy.”

Moore would get an argument on that from Thomas Bond, the head of Biograph Motion Pictures in Hollywood. He called Moore’s remarks anti-American.

“I have no problems with opinions,” said Bond, “but last night’s outburst by Moore was sickening and uncalled for. I am very supportive of all views, but not derogatory rantings, especially when Americans are dying and being tortured as we speak. I am very happy he was booed off stage by rational people in the entertainment industry.”

Bond would get an argument from Moore on that last point.

“Don’t report that there was a split decision in the hall because five wild people booed,” Moore admonished reporters backstage.

Moore specializes in populist expressions, such as his demand that the U.S. military withdraw its troops from ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News. The Oscar speech was not the first time he took off on Bush.

He gave roughly the same speech one day earlier in Santa Monica, when “Bowling for Columbine” won for best documentary at the IFP Independent Spirit Awards. Actually, Moore has been challenging the legitimacy of the Bush presidency since the 2000 election.

His major opus in this regard is “Stupid White Men: And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation.”

The book is loaded with statistical evidence supporting many of Moore’s arguments against Bush. In the book, Moore also calls Bush names — such as “thief-in-chief” and “idiot-in-chief.”

Moore’s statistical content has been called into question by numerous critics. The name-calling is subjective, and therefore open to endless argument about its accuracy — but name-calling seems not to contribute in a constructive way to serious discussions about crucial issues.

Moore supports his case by pointing out that the book is the best-selling nonfiction book in America over the past year. But if he is going to use sales figures to argue for the legitimacy of a political argument, he would have to concede that Bernard Goldberg’s “Bias” and Ann Coulter’s anti-liberal best-sellers have just as much merit as “Stupid White Men.”

It’s doubtful that Moore would carry populism quite that far.

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.