New York, NY

Dear Ned,

I hope you agree that any U.S. foreign policy must be consistent and equitable if it is to be respected and supported by other nations. Your editorial "Cypriot Woes" (WSJ, Apr. 3), for example, argues that Northern Cyprus (the Turkish area) "ought to be internationally recognized." And that Greek Cyprus should be admitted on its own into the European Union. "Greece should cancel its missile order from Russia. The Turks should diminish their military presence," you say. "And Mr. (Richard) Holbrooke (U.S. Special Envoy for Cyprus) could go home."

In other words, the Wall Street Journal would like the 30-year+ de facto partition of Cyprus to become a labra lege (read my lips) pactum factum (done deal). With a few other policy twists thrown in, such as denying the western death merchants' competitor (Russia) a missile sale in the region. Now, let's apply the same medicine to Bosnia, for example.

The Bosnian Serb Republic should be internationally recognized. It should be put on a fast track for admission to the European Union. U.S. arms supplies to the Bosnian Muslims and Croats must cease immediately. The foreign Islamic military presence in Bosnia should be diminished. And NATO can go home (meaning to the dustbin of history).

What, you don't like that? Okay. Let's try your Cyprus medicine on another region of the world - the Middle East.

Palestine should be internationally recognized. And be put on a fast track for admission to the U.N., the IMF and all other globalist acronyms (the fastest way to destroy a nation, as we've seen in Southeast Asia). U.S. arms supplies to Israel must cease immediately. Israel's presence in Lebanon and all other occupied territories should be diminished, then followed by a complete pullout. All weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, including Israel's nuclear weapons, must be removed or destroyed under international supervision. And the western "peace negotiators" (read warmongers) can go home to Washington, London...

What, you don't like that, either? Okay. Then just substitute the Kurds for Palestinians in the above scenario, and the Turks for the Israelis.

Still "no like?" Still "no way, Jose?"

Well then, dear Sirs and Madams, distinguished editors of the Wall Street Journal... would you care to explain to your readers why what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander? If partition is a good solution for Cyprus (and it may well be), why then should such a policy not be consistently and equitably applied to other parts of the world?

Let me guess: Could it be because it was crafted by racial bigots and demagogues? Frankly, I can't think of any other explanation. If you can, please add your footnote to this letter. Thank you.

Best regards,

Bob Djurdjevic

Also check out..."You Were Wrong About Gen. Perisic", "New York Times' Kosovo News Manipulation",  "Plus, Another Kosovo News Cover-up",  "Embarrassed About Such 'Serbs',"  "Put the UN Justice on Trial",  "Another Wall Street Bailout, Another Main Street Sellout", "Does WSJ Dance to Wall St. Bankers' Tunes?",  "Clinton Fiddles While Milosevic Burns",  "Let the Bombing Begin?  Not!" , "What's Good for the Goose..."  and "Journal's Rotten Apples" (Wall Street Journal); and "Stock buybacks: Wall St.'s Duping of Main St.", Business Week).