.I think we are giving a bit more emphasis than necessary to Ambassador Moriarty's speech ('Professor Moriarty strikes again', #287). First we should understand his desire for war against terror. For him it is easy to vouch for such a war because for the US war against terror is against some foreigners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Few innocent people (actually several thousands so far) killed here and there doesn't seem to matter to the US. But here a single person killed on the either side is a Nepali and as CK Lal writes, a Nepali will silently weep whenever anyone dies in this meaningless conflict. Second, what Moriarty says does not always have to be true. It is his personal or may be his government's view and we just have to look into the claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraqi to see how off mark that can be. Third, even if his US views are correct, we don't have to follow that doctrine if it does not suit us. Cuba has been doing pretty well ignoring the Americans. Let's just remember that if we had been able to keep our own house in order then we'd not have to be listening to these lectures from foreign diplomat and then make a such a big deal out of it.

Sagar Sharma, email

.CK Lal's piece on James Moriarty was interesting. It seems that the US doesn't really want a stable Nepal. With the end of the Cold War, a unipolar system has emerged with Washington dictating most world affairs at will. However, China and India are rapidly emerging and will play a pivotal role in world affairs in coming decades. The US fears this change and what better way to foil the Asian giants' growth and prosperity than by trying to destabilise the entire region using Nepal as a platform?

Santosh Pokharel, Maine, USA

.I am not a political activist, but I agree 110 percent with the last statement of Bamdeb Gautam (From the Nepali Press, #287) that the violence or 'terrorism' in Nepal was born, grew and spread like wildfire when the monarch, parties and the international community were standing together. Therefore, going back to the same situation as suggested by the US ambassador 'is the wrong prescription to resolve this crisis'. By now, every genuine peace-loving ordinary citizen of Nepal knows it is not possible to achieve even an initial state of peace or political resolution by isolating the Maoists. In fact, the US should learn from and reflect on the results of its actions in Iraq before proposing any solutions to Nepal's crisis. Nepal needs a negotiated political settlement that enables people to take charge of their destiny, not an autocratic regime and more arms that will spur further bloodshed.

G Gurung, Italy

.I have rarely seen a non-Nepali who has understood Nepal's nuances so deeply as Sam Cowan in his Guest column ('Nepal's two wars', #287). It shows that some foreigners really care about Nepal while others, like the US ambassador, have their own vested and short-sighted interests at heart.

Ranjan Thapa, email

.Nepal's political parties are like a pack of dogs. Right now they all claim to be working together but if the fate of the nation was back in their hands, they'd turn on each other. To prove my point, they should be challenged to put forth an interim government of their choice to guide the nation to peace. They will show their true colours by fighting amongst themselves, the same in-fighting that let the murderous Maoists go from strength to strength. The shocking part is how they have spun things around to make His Majesty the bad guy, when he's the one man who can and will save this nation.

'Just another Nepali', email

.In 'Professor Moriairty strikes again' (# 287), C K Lal writes: 'The venue was Ganesh Man Singh Adhyan Pratisthan, a pseudo-academic body known for its right wing sympathies.the Ambassadors' address has proven to be a public relation coup staged on a shoe string budget'. This Academy had embarked upon a mission to continue the legacy of Ganesh Man Singh to safeguard democracy and sovereignty of the Nepalis to the best of its resources. Has Mr Lal ever visited the Academy or kept up to date with its performance since its inception in 1995? The Academy may not have similar access to privileges of the high profile forum of the Nepali Times, which we guess is addressed to the 'non-upper crust' as well. We will let the 'shoe-string' phrase go. Just as the media, we also sometimes provide fora for discussions. The address by Ambassador Moriarity in the venue and media reverberations are quite natural. But by no stretch of journalistic ethics can Mr Lal label the Academy as rightist on this score. It is an infra dig of an 'advocate' of free media as Mr Lal to pen such irresponsible comments.

The Academy leaves upper crust and hopefully 'non-upper' crust readership of your paper to infer what they may of Mr Lal on his downright demeaning allegations on the Academy. At least we don't make value judgments for mileage.
Nabindra Raj Joshi President,
Ganesh Man Singh Academy