Jim Elliott's Letters to the Editor

Letter to the St. Louis Post Dispatch during the Viet Namese war. Miss Carol Feraci appeared at a White House function as part of a youth vocal group. During the performance, she asked President Nixon to stop the killing. Billy Graham and others criticized her.
 
 In my opinion, Miss Carol Feraci’s remarks urging the President to stop the killing, represented a higher stage of spiritual development than Billy graham’s. When the Prophet Amos foretold the fate of Israel, the Priest Amaziah ordered Amos to "prophesy not again any more at Bethel for it is a royal house". We need more rude prophets and fewer establishment priests.
James E. Elliott
 

This letter to the St. Louis Post Dispatch was in response to a war supporter who stated that it was just and honorable.
 
 Jack Moran’s May 14 letter argues that, among other things, Ho Chi Minh was not a Nationalist. He apparently believes that it is impossible to follow the economic theories of Karl Marx and also be a Nationalist.
 In 1946, Ho wrote a letter to President Harry Truman reminding him that one of the stated goals of World War II was to allow colonial peoples to chose the form of government under which they live.
 He asked Truman to help him repel the French, who were using military force to regain control of his country. Truman ignored his plea and instead assisted the French in resubjugating the Vietnamese.
 Ho’s plea was pure Nationalism. Our response made a mockery of the Atlantic Charter signed by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in 1941.
 Moran sums up our involvement in Vietnam with the statement that our cause was just and honorable. It brings back the image of President Lindon Johnson, who spoke of our attempts to help a tiny democracy that was helped by international communism.
 A National Security Council memo printed in the Pentagon Papers identifies our interest in southeast Asia as making sure the area’s oil, tin, and rubber remain under western control. So much for "just and honorable" motives.
James E. Elliott
 

This letter to the St. Louis Post Dispatch was addressed to the question of whether we can trust the Russians.
 
 President Reagan’s polemics about the evil empire and violations of the ABM treaty have come back to haunt him now that he seeks approval of his arms control treaty. Jeff Thomason’s Oct. 31 letter illustrates this problem. He asks whether the Russians live up to anything they sign.
 The answer is that the Russians, like other major powers, abide by treaties they think are favorable. An example is found in Winston Churchill’s history of World War II. Churchill visited Moscow in October 1944 and proposed that England have 90% domination in Greece, 50"% domination in Yugoslavia and 10% domination in the rest of the Balkans.
 Stalin agreed and did not give further aid to the Greek Communists. England and later the US became the dominant power in non-communist Greece; Yugoslavia has a Communist government with minimal Russian control. Churchill also reported that Stalin had "adhered strictly and faithfully to our agreement".
 Churchill was fiercely anti-Communist but he felt free to negotiate with the Russians when he could offer what he thought was a mutually advantageous deal. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher seemed to share this view when she said of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, "We can do business with him". Reducing the number of atomic weapons would be good business for the whole world.
James E. Elliott
 


 
Then there was the affair in Nicaragua and Ollie North and the Contras. This letter was to the Donnybrook program on our local PBS station.
 
 Contrary to Mr. Koster’s statement, the Boland amendment prohibited the president from funding the Contra’s. Reagan and North broke the law.
 
 Those of Mr. Koster’s persuasion use the quibble that the law didn’t mention the NSC as an agency that was prohibited from funding the Contras. Congress makes laws and the President administers them. Congress appropriates money and the President spends it in accordance with the provisions of the law. The Boland amendment clearly stated that Congress didn’t want any more money to go to the Contras.
 You say that the CIA and NSC must lie to Congress because a Congressman might reveal secret information. This is preposterous. Congress acts in behalf of the American people and it must know the truth or it will legislate wrongly.
 As a parting shot, how would you react to a different scenario? Suppose some minor government employee arranged to sell arms to an enemy and used the proceeds to fund abortion clinics. Suppose he lied and later the truth was discovered. Would you gloat about his "exoneration" if he escaped punishment by a technicality? (Note: the host of Donnybrook is a very strong pro life supporter.)
James E. Elliott
 

 
A letter to the St. Louis Post Dispatch on Ollie North.

 So Ollie North wants to "halt the inquisition". I am not surprised, since few lawbreakers like to be investigated. He calls investigator Walsh a vigilante. Vigilante’s are self appointed and operate outside the law. Walsh was hired by Congress in accordance with law to investigate allegations of lawlessness.
 North notes proudly that his conviction has been vacated by a court of appeals. This does not mean he was exonerated. The court ruled that Walsh had to prove he had not used evidence from the congressional committee as a basis for his investigation. If the case had involved Willie Horton instead of super patriot Ollie North, conservatives would have called the ruling a legal loophole.
 Next. North tells us that he was harassed because he was trying to halt the spread of Communism in this hemisphere. I seem to remember the same argument from the junior senator from Wisconsin. North is wrong in saying that the success of the Contras was the first rollback of Communism in 70 years. Has he forgotten that the CIA overthrew the left of center but legally elected government of Guatemala in 1954?
 I encourage Walsh to proceed with the orderly prosecution of those who broke the law by using the proceeds of illegal weapons sales to Iran to give illegal assistance to the Contras.
James E. Elliott
 

One last tongue in cheek gibe at Ollie published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

 I just got a hot new rumor from a reporter of the Los Angeles Daily News. After O. J. Simpson is exonerated, he plans to move to Virginia and run against Ollie North. He doesn’t think it right that a felon should be in the Senate.
James E. Elliott


On the use of the atomic bomb sent to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, but not published.
 
 I agree with your editorial which praises President Truman for refusing to use the atomic bomb during the Korean war. I am not ready to praise him for using it against Japan, however. Japan was a defeated nation. Our blockade had shut off its oil imports. Its last battleship left port without enough fuel to return home. Our B-29’s met little resistance in the final months of the war.
 The statement that the A-bomb casualties were not significantly greater than the casualties inflicted by conventional bombs is true, but does not justify use of nuclear weapons. It was immoral to kill 100,000 civilians in Japan’s major cities using conventional explosives. The idea that this barbarity justified an escalation of barbarity is preposterous.
 I think that Catholic catechism 2314 in the 1994 edition says it well. "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."
James E. Elliott


America and war, a letter to the St. Louis Post Dispatch
 
 General John Shalikashvili believes the mission of the American military has always been to "deter". Let’s examine the purpose of our wars in the 19th century to test the general’s statement.
 
War of 1812: Restore trade with continental Europe and annex Canada
Mexican War: Fulfill our manifest destiny by annexing Mexican territory.
Civil War: Maintain the economic advantage of the northern states
Indian Wars: Exterminate the Indians who opposed our encroachment
Spanish American War: Gain economic ascendancy in the Caribbean and Pacific
 
I believe the role of the military in the 19th century was to advance the interest’s of America’s political and economic governing establishment. Where was the "deterrence" in these wars?
James E. Elliott


 
On the Gulf war, published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch
 
Bill Moyers program on the aftermath of the Gulf war broadcast last night on public television was a devastating expose of US policy. Our Ambassador told Saddam that we wouldn’t intervene in his border dispute with Kuwait, then destroyed much of Iraq. We were fighting for a "Just Cause", but don’t seem concerned that Kuwait is maintaining its former dictatorial ways. We encouraged the Kurds to overthrow Saddam, but stood by as his helicopters routed them. While we were celebrating our glorious victory, Kurds and Shiites were dying and will continue to die by the thousands.
 The saddest part of this episode is that our government has apparently learned nothing from it. I understand that we are about to give El Salvador another 42 million in the hope that a military solution there is possible, We are so anxious to maintain military forces in the Pacific that we have offered the Philippines 8 Billion dollars to renew the lease on the US bases there. It will cost millions to refurbish the bases after the volcano stops erupting. Wouldn’t it be better to abandon them?
 Do we really need the covert actions by the CIA? We spend billions on the CIA and find that drug trafficking increases in every country they operate in. We overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala in 1954 and that country has been a police state ever since.
 We must abandon the reliance on intervention by military force and intrigue that has characterized US actions since the second world war. The New World Order should be based on a strong United Nations and a truly peace loving United States.
James E. Elliott
 

 
Is the US a Christian nation? Letter published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch
 
 Supporters of the notion that America is a Christian nation usually rely on the intent of the founding fathers. They also point to the references to God on our coins and in the pledge of allegiance. Congress has its chaplain and federal employees are sworn in with their hands on the Bible.
 But does this make us a Christian Nation? Shouldn’t we examine the actions of our government to see whether they have been in harmony with Christian doctrine.
 We are rightly concerned about ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovia but forget that we cleansed America of its native population by genocide and the reservation system. We made war on Spain because it was suppressing a revolution in Cuba, then suppressed the revolt of the Philipinos.
When Japan challenged our intrusion into her backyard, we agreed to let Japan take over Korea if she did not make an issue of our conquest of the Philippines.
We stole Panama from Columbia. We claimed to be fighting to preserve democracy in Southeast Asia, but National Security Agency documents of that era speak of keeping the oil, tin, and rubber for the "free" world.
Just last week our politicians were outraged that Iraq allegedly plotted to assassinate President George Bush during his trip to Kuwait. Our efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro are well documented. We targeted Moammar Gadhafi’s tent but only killed his adopted daughter. I suspect the cruise missile that damaged the El Rachid Hotel in Baghdad was intended to kill Saddam Hussein.
 Isn’t it the height of hypocrisy to criticize others for acts we have been guilty of? Wouldn’t a truly Christian nation practice the Golden Rule?
James E. Elliott
 

What are Humanists? Letter published by the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

Letters from readers make up one of the more interesting features of your paper. I appreciated Isaac’s defense of humanism and was interested in the opposing view expressed by Rev. Connor Corkran.
Rev. Corcran objected to Asimov’s use of "dogmatic" to describe the radical right and made the counter claim that the humanists are the ones that are dogmatic. If dogmatic is "positiveness of opinion", as one of my dictionaries has it, then both Asimov and Corkran may be right. If dogmatism implies erroneous belief, the jury is still out. I see a real difference between humanists and their opponents, one that goes beyond quibbling over which side is dogmatic. Asimov may believe strongly in the "Humanist Manifesto" but I have never heard that he had suggested that children should be forced to recite it in school. The radical right, however, wants to bring back mandatory school prayer. (they forget that prayer was not outlawed, only the requirement to recite a state written, general purpose prayer).
Humanists believe that humanity may be able to avoid a nuclear war if we use our heads, while many of their opponents feel that world destruction is inevitable because the Book of Revelations says so. I hope the Humanists are right.
James E. Elliott
 


On Chinese reform, published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch.
 
 Its fine to be concerned about civil rights in China, but will it do any good to make that an issue with President Jiang Zemin during his visit? Why do we criticize countries over which we have no control, and ignore the evils of "our friends"?
For 25 years, President Chiang Kai-shek didn’t allow native born Formosans to vote. We could have forced reform in Formosa if we had threatened to cut off aid. Gen. Francisco Franco was a tyrannical dictator, but in the words of Harry Truman, he was our "SOB", and he was not pilloried.
We criticize Fidel Castro, but from what I hear, he is a saint compared to some of the Latin American dictators we have backed. Lets clean up our friends, before we try to reform China.
James E. Elliott
 


                                                                          Return to: Jim Elliott's Web Page  

 
             This page is hosted by  Get your own Free Home Page