Two reports, dealing on the fertiliser crisis, put side by side on the front page in your Nov 14 issue make a fascinating reading.
   In one, the industries adviser stated ‘the fertiliser shortage is a myth created by the media and those farmers unwilling to queue up’! She further stated ‘fertiliser stock was sufficient although its distribution suffered’.
   Does it mean the government is not accountable for distribution and washes its hands off from it? An innovating way to ‘pass the buck’, I must say!
   The other report from Rajbari stated ‘Angered by short supplies of fertiliser a big mob of farmers attacked the residence of a Balikandi upazila agricultural officer and looted fertiliser from the godown of a dealer.’ Further it was stated that ‘The report of rioting over fertiliser came at a time when the government authorities claimed there is sufficient stock of the essential agri-input, but some problem in distribution and propaganda caused the outcry!’
   Clearly the government claims the fault lies with the distribution system and propaganda, none of which was its doing. Fancy having scuffles and rioting with stocks overflowing! May be, the farmers were on a binge and could not see the ample stocks or were out to discredit the hard-working government. The UNB-Rajbari report further stated ‘As sub-assistant agriculture officer and distribution officer could not arrive in time and the farmers did not agree to take 10 kg fertiliser each, they broke into anger.’ Arriving late is not government responsibility. May be the poor officials got stuck up in a traffic jam at Balikandi upazila.
   The 10 kg of fertiliser per farmer indicates there was some form of rationing, despite large stock, to compel the unwilling farmers to queue up and learn order and discipline. Or, may be all this is a myth created by the imaginative reporters of UNB-Rajbari.
   A Rice Eater
   Dhaka

Admiral William Fallon, head of the US Central Command (Centcom), which oversees military operations in the Middle East, recently told the press that while dealing with Iran was a challenge, a strike is not on the cards. ‘None of this is helped by the continuing stories that just keep going around and around that any day there will be another war, which is just not where we want to go,’ he said.
   Admiral Fallon’s comments would counter both the hawks in the Bush administration and those so-called independent commentators who are predicting of an imminent strike against Iran over its nuclear ambitions. But it should be clear to all that the US is simply not in a position to enter in a new conflict when it is already embroiled in two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ‘It seems to me that we don’t need more problems,’ says Admiral Fallon. ‘It astounds me that so many pundits and others are spending so much time yakking about this topic.’
   Even many White House officials say that the administration’s rhetoric has been misunderstood; the goal is to increase the diplomatic pressure on Tehran to prevent the dispute reaching crisis level, they say. Most military commanders have deep misgivings about the ability of the United States to wage another war after the disastrous results of the Iraq war. Although the US President George W. Bush frequently resorts to most ominous rhetoric about catastrophic consequences of letting Iran to develop any nuclear capability, most administration officials are aware of the equally catastrophic consequences of striking Iran.
   So there will be no war against Iran. But this doesn’t mean that the conflict with Iran is over. A more likely scenario is that the US and its allies will be engaged in Soviet-style Cold War with Iran. If Iran explodes a nuclear device, the United States and its allies will put many economic and political restrictions in the same way the Soviet Union was isolated from the US-led international trade and commerce during the Cold War. The embargo against the Iranian oil will be intensified and a nuclear-armed Iran might find itself in the same position as the nuclear-armed North Korea found itself after it exploded its own nuclear device.
   Mahmood Elahi
   Ottawa, Canada

One of my close relatives reached Zia International Airport (ZIA) from Hong Kong on November 8 at 1 am. They had to wait with their luggage up to 2.30 am because the Belt Operator was not there at that time. There were many foreigners in that flight besides locals. It was a very bad experience for the foreigners. Even locals were very annoyed.
   Another point of harassment is customs formalities. It is a bit better now than before. Customs officials should behave politely. For security reasons and necessary formalities there will be some delay and that is acceptable but harassment because of inefficiency, negligence, corruption, misbehaviour is not acceptable.
   Imtiaz
   Uttara, Dhaka