ms. kaoirala, there are certain things that i would like to comment on your articles. 1. "...this picturesque American State has been made infamous by its erratic, loose speaking but longest serving Senator Patrick Leahy....Senator Leahy led a senate delegation to the People's Republic of China. On what should have been a courteous exchange visit with the Chinese turned out to be a 'fact-finding mission on Tibet'... This grossly anti-Chinese and pro-Tibet liberation Senator fails to realize that ninety percent of Tibetans worldwide have gone to those countries via Nepal... " i don't know why you are attacking Senator Leahy from his previous visits to China, when he had made no comments on Chinese stance on Nepal or Nepalese stance on Tibet. There has not been a single mention of either China or Tibet. All Leahy activities related to China and Tibet are of no significance about what he has explained in his report to the Bush Administration. You mentioned that he is longest serving senator. We should all realize no matter how political this country's legislation runs, the people are just no fool in electing their legislative leaders. I think Senator only wanted to tell the administration what he found regarding Nepal. Bush may or may not like it. If he does, he'll agree, if he doesn't he'll send another mission. He may fail (Iraq) or he may pass (Afganistan). That's upto the US policies on foreign lands. i don't think Nepal should blame the US for not providing weapons and arms. If Maoist can find their weapon in their own ways, then sure Nepalese government can. If India doesn't like the way Nepal do, then too bad, India will impose sanctions as we have all seen in 1987-88 (for the same arms reasons). Like you said, if Nepal invited Dalai Lama, Senator would have heralded King's Feb 1 move. Same thing, if he had favored King's Feb 1 move, you would have heralded the Senator, rather than defaming his character by personally commenting him as "erratic but loose speaking". You have all rights to make arguments to invalidate Senator's comment, but i think you should have used his comments rather than past activities. I don't think he has said anything wrong whether i agree or not. I know Nepal is historically a monarchical nation, as the followers of "Sanatana Dharma", but barring people from their fundamental freedom, is not justifiable. To add to Senator Leahy's remarsk, i think King Gyanendra should hire better people in his cabinet. He currently has a team of past leaders who would agree on King's decision rather than providing better advises. 2. "...Although, Nepal has always adhered to Tibet Autonomous Region being an inalienable and inseparable part of China it has however never mistreated thirty thousand odd Tibetans living inside Nepal... They live in Nepal with privilege, dignity and in comfortable economic conditions..." I believe that you should have done a little more research on the history of Nepal, before you wrote that sentence. The statement above is wrong. Arniko never went to China, he went to Tibet. Bhrikuti marrried Tsrong-tsong Gompo, a king of TIBET. Nepal fought 3 wars with tibet, the last one during Jung Bahadur Rana over the issues of trade and Nepalese currency in Tibet. Chinese always intervened to help the Tibetans, and once, they even reached the borders of Kathmandu. Tibetans coins were always accepted in the Tibeto-Nepalese borders until the chinese takeover. And you have no idea, how they have struggled every moment since the 1959. You don't even know the history of Tibet. Do you even have a clue about the yellow hats and the black hats, and how the yellow hats beat the black hats, and what their stances are as of now, what is the Dalai Lam.. etc. etc., ? you don't ms. koirala, and please do not attack anyone personally again. becuase an intellectual minds of Senator Leahy, yourself and many others are only