"Ohio has failed the world"

In order to understand Mr. Ali's view point, one needs to understand the peculiarities of the US democratic system. Contrary to popular belief, the democratic system, instead of being "by the people, of the people and for the people", is more of "by the lobbies, of the lobbies and for the lobbies". To the un-initiated, a lobby is usually a person or a company (law firms in most cases) that have unobstructed access to the upper echelons of the US government. The job of a lobby is to influence the lawmaking process of the US government to enact laws in favour of the special interests being represented by the lobby. Lobbies invest heavily in presidential campaigns. Most of the funding for advertising, travel, and budget for campaign staff comes from funding provided by the lobbies. Industrial giants such as UNOCAL, ENRON, IBM, GM and Microsoft, for example, utilise lobbies to obtain business benefits and tax breaks.

Religious and political groups also utilise lobbies to further their own agenda. Two such groups are the Evangelical Christians led by Rev Billy Graham and the Zionists. While the Zionists do not have a representative leader they are comprised of political and financially influential persons in the United States. Many of the architects and supporters of the war on Iraq are Zionists, such as Ken Adleman, Paul Wolfowitz, Daniel Pipes, and billionaire publisher Steve Forbes. The objective of the Zionists is to ensure the continuity of Israel by ensuring the uninterrupted flow of money (6 billion per year, officially) and arms to Israel, and destruction of any and all states that oppose the existence of Israel. The objective of the Evangelical Christians, on the other hand, is to destroy Islam in Jerusalem. In essence, the objectives of these two lobbies are therefore the same, while they may differ in religious ideology.

With Jerusalem surrounded and protected by Israel, the purpose of the Christian Evangelists is being served. With the continued genocide in Palestine , with most of the Arab governments reduced to proxy governments of the West, with the current war on Iraq and soon to be commenced war on Syria and Iran, the objective of both the Evangelical Christians and the Zionists are being served. Add to that the voracious appetite of the US economy for oil. With Iran and Iraq each having as much oil as Saudi Arabia, subduing these two countries to ensure uninterrupted flow of oil is an added boon.

In order to maintain this comfortable status quo, therefore, Mr. Bush, with his aggressive stance was the candidate of choice of these two lobbies, among others. Mr Kerry on the other hand appearing subdued and eager to mediate the US out of its quagmire in Iraq and create a Palestinian State, was percieved as weak and ineffective.

The article written by Zaied Ali "Ohio has failed the world" faces remarkable sarcasm & criticism by American individuals only. They claimed that Zaied Ali's article carries only misinformation and hatred. One Mr. Bruce Irle complained, "calling Mr. Bush is a known liar is more than irritating". He claimed, " the borderline is slanderous, can Mr. Ali provide one instance where Mr. Bush has lied". Honestly these lines couldn't help me laugh. Would I call it your arrogance or ignorance that you still want one single instance to know where Mr. Bush has lied. Was the declaration of war against Iraq was not on false ground? Did he not lie in front of the media that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Could Mr. Bush prove his allegations to be true? You said, "A liar requires intent to mislead", do you really think that Mr. Bush has no intent to mislead the world giving false statement? Honestly, I don't think Sir, you're just in your statement. You're analysing everything through your blinded one side view because your people are not being tortured in Abu Ghraib prison, your people are not being killed in American air strikes.

Esparza Robert wrote interestingly against Zaied Ali's, but showed the very exact intention of American people. She didn't vote for Kerry as Kerry was against war and as her words follow "How could we win a war that he is against to begin with?" I like to thank you first because you accept the truth that Americans imposed the war on Iraq whereas your so called great leader Mr. Bush said mendaciously that he is fighting for the freedom and democracy of Iraqi people (which he's never asked for.)

The fiendish dictatorship of Mr. Bush has no doubts crossed the limits set by Hitler.

Farhat Naz Kayettuli, Dhaka

Bruce Irle of Hillsboro, after boldly defending Bush's truthfulness, tells a big lie himself. His statement about John Kerry's testimony to Congress is a lie. Kerry did not say that he was daily exposed to atrocities in Vietnam, he merely summarised the testimony of other veterans who had seen such atrocities. The testimony Kerry summarised and presented before Congress has been thoroughly checked and found credible. Who is the liar here?

Mr. Irle shows his ignorance by writing about how the Republicans are good for the economy. It seems as though his opposition to the Democrats is so great that mere facts cannot shake his beliefs. What new jobs is he talking about? And if he believes in less government, not more, then I guess he opposes the Patriot Act too.

Abdur Rahman New York, NY

Bruce Irle wants an example of Bush lying? Is he serious? How about "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom." Or "I barely know Ken Lay." Or when he said in the debate that he had never said Osama was not important? I could go on and on. By making such a ludicrous claim, Irle shows that he is either ignorant or blindly biased, just the point that Mr. Ali was trying to make!

It is no wonder that Bush was re-elected!

Masoud Anwar, Dhaka

I have a question for Esparza Robert. How has the Iraq war anything to do with the US national security? Does she really think that the US is safer now? I have news for her -- no one in the world has any respect for Bush or the US right now.

Zareen Ali, Dhaka

Just take a look at JDH's reply and you will see what kind of a nation the US is. George W. Bush defeated John F. Kerry by a huge margin, not because most American voters preferred Bush's foreign policies to Kerry's or anything to that effect but because he is an avowed Christian. The very same nation goes around the world preaching its own distorted "values" of democracy, civil rights, equality, freedom of speech etc.

Quoting from Paula Bernstein Thousand Oaks, California, US, "As a person of colour in the US, he is likely to be falsely arrested and/or hassled by authorities."

What kind of a nation can have such rampant discriminatory practices? I used to associate these concepts with South Africa during the Apartheid. So much for a "great" nation, huh.

The fact is no one outside the US basically cares a lot about Ohio or any other state of the US. What bothers most of them is the length to which the US government will get involved in local affairs.

If one is to believe Esparza Robert, then "The reason Kerry lost was because he was weak on defence.... he was against war." That must be a huge surprise to learn that Americans voted the one candidate they thought will be a better warmonger. Truly revealing account of the American psyche, wasn't it?

For all the Americans who remain misinformed for one reason or another, let me just ask you these: Has the number of terrorists increased or decreased after Bush started his attack on Iraq? Were there fewer or more terrorists before? Was the world less or more peaceful before Bush attacked Iraq?

Almost the whole world supported the routing of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which anyway wasn't recognised by more than 3 countries as legitimate, yet Americans wanted not to end terrorism but to escalate it by invading a relatively peaceful Iraq.

The outcome of that invasion as we all know has not yet been favourable for anybody.

Nafis Kamal, On e-mail

In Monday's New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert makes the following point:

"I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the US has come up with 'clear evidence' that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al- Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the US-led invasion.

This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder, Bush won.

Perhaps our American readers who have been so vocal in recent days would care to comment?

Rezaul Khan, New York, NY