UYLESS: The writer's response

Dear Stan,

In response to your “Readers Write” in the Cd’A Press issue of July 8, 2016: I did not have the space to describe further that China does not wear a white hat, but I thought I made my thoughts clear on this specific matter with my writing, “I’m in America’s corner and am adamantly opposed to China’s Orwellian repressive regime. It is a despotic system, using terror to kowtow citizens who step out of line.”

Your points are valid about Tibet and Burma, and I will not justify China’s behavior toward these countries. However, the U.S. has had similar operations in its spheres of influence. See with approximate dates Guatemala (United Fruit: 1952-1954), Cuba (remember the Maine: 1898), Nicaragua (Contras: 1986); not to mention remote places, such as Iran (reaction of Iran’s democratic regime to its nationalizing the oil industry: 1953), Philippines (Spanish-American War: 1899), Iraq (2003), and others.

Your point about hiding submarines in pens: Who can be faulted for hiding their nuclear submarine fleet? That is the primary reason submarines are called submarines.

You cite China’s possessing nuclear subs and nuclear missiles. True. Who acquired them first, America or China? Who has more of these armaments, America or China? Who spends more on its military forces, America or China? Who spreads its military forces around the world, America or China? (Please re-examine Figures 1 and 2 in my second article.)

I also wrote that I knew I was unlikely to change one single opinion, but I hoped to at least give readers pause about the stereotype of America never stirring the pot of international trouble-making. My points, once again, are simple:

(1) Regardless of our opinion of China’s good guy status (and opinion is very low), the country does not pose an existential threat to America.

(2) The U.S. and China should make efforts to jointly combat those forces that do indeed pose threats to our mutual security and well-being, such as terrorism and pollution. (In China, pollution is undermining the health of the country’s citizens and ruining China’s rivers and land, a situation that will eventually cascade around the world).

Stan, even if I disagree with you, you pose interesting, provocative points. It is refreshing to receive a letter critical of my stand (on anything) that is not bombastic…that is actually polite. Again, we will never change each other’s minds, but I do ask you to do two things: Re-examine the four figures in the series and read my July 4th article in the Press about the timber and timbre of America. A third favor. Please tell me: What the hell is “my mad red handbook?”! I’ve read Mao’s little red book and find it full of

delusions and replete with manipulative, self-serving lies. I hope your phrase is not equating me with a man I abhor and detest. I’ve no handbook, Stan. I’ve no ideological ax to grind. I do my homework, with the hope that I can offer to others another way of looking at an issue. I’m not out to change their minds, but hope to have others look at an issue from more than one angle.

I was an adamant Cold War warrior and am a dedicated warm war warrior. But I also adhered (and still do) to LBJ’s approach in dealing with a potential foe, “I’d rather have the person inside my tent, p---ing out, than outside my tent, p---ing in.”

UYLESS BLACK

Coeur d’Alene