Supporting Military War -
Opposing Military War
|
We support war on terrorism
but question the need for military war on nations unless
there is an imminent threat to U.S. national security.
Please let us know your thoughts. |
To: Letter to the
Editor-NYT (Send to TMT)
From: Doris Cadigan
Date 5/21/04
Subject: America on the wrong side---"A Square Deal"
needed for the Palestinian people
Sir,
When I saw the tragic photograph of a wounded and dead
Palestinian youngster on the front page of your paper ( NYT,
5/20/04), I felt like screaming and crying like the people
who carried his lifeless body. Then I saw more pictures
inside of a makeshift morgue with more dead Gazans laid
out--I was absolutely horrified. This conflict is breaking
my heart and it's placing America on the wrong side.
The tragic death of this innocent boy and many innocent
Gazans is a terrible reminder that President Bush's
endorsement of Mr. Sharon on Tuesday with, "Israel has the
right to defend itself" places America on the wrong side of
this conflict. I would not deny anyone the right to defend
himself or herself in the face of death. But it seems the
Israeli Army's campaign "Operation Rainbow " to root out
"armed terrorists" uncover "smuggling tunnels" and to widen
"a buffer zone' in Gaza is terribly misleading. In
according with the 4th Geneva convention -- all military
personnel and attacks in a civilian setting are to be
properly conducted to separate and identify combatants from
non combatants and arrest and detent prisoners--before
employing fire.
From the reports I have heard and the areas where civilians
were killed -- it seems the Israeli Army is in gross
violation of these international standards. Five civilians
were killed on their way to morning prayers at a mosque, 10
civilians were killed while protesting and a young brother
and sister were shot on a rooftop taking in the family's
laundry. Many more civilians were killed in questionable
settings for the improper use of fire to have been employed.
The doctors at the local hospital have also reported--
almost half of the dead were teenage boys. So where are the
claims of "armed terrorists" and "sophisticated weapons."
The weapons recovered were nothing more than a routine
"nuisance" army personal have to deal with daily.
As a friends of Israel and the Palestinian people I cannot
support Mr. Sharon's cruel desire to condemn many peoples
homes either. Why can't the army use sensory devices to pick
up air in the tunnels in peoples homes and frequently
monitor them with today's technology? These demolition's are
unnecessary and should shame all Israelis in light of their
own tragic history. As a friend of Israel --I believe the
Army's operations in Rafah do not represent good Jewish
people I know -- like Iraq do not represent good Americans I
know.
Mr. Sharon should do the honorable and right thing and stop
these harsh measures towards the Palestinian people. In the
words of another great American president--Teddy Roosevelt--Mr
Sharon should give the Palestinian people "a square deal."
That's the only way peace and security will be achieved for
Israelis and Palestinians. When the Israeli forces pull out
from the Occupied Territories and when the Gaza Strip
becomes part of an independent Palestinian State. Surely,
that's the proper way for this situation to be resolved
---we shouldn't be placed on the wrong side of this
conflict.
It's unfair to us. I love both people and want to see them
happy and safe. We should help them to
work this out as real friends .
Yours Sincerely,
Mrs. Doris Cadigan,
Natick, Massachusetts, USA
John Kerry did what?
To all of you draft evaders
who would designate John Kerry’s "years-ago", anti-war
speeches as giving "Aid and Comfort" to the enemy: I suggest
that the only thing you know about "Aid and Comfort" is that
which you provide your rear-ends with as you attempt to
palliate your guilt for not showing up when called upon to
serve your Country. I take no great exception to your not
wanting to fight. I do, however, take severe exception to
your attempt to transfer your guilt for denying your Country
your "Aid and Comfort" in a time of strife, to a man like
John Kerry.
If it were not for the
courage of men like John Kerry -both on and off the
battlefield, we could have had 100,000 + killed in Viet Nam,
instead of 65,000, and still had nothing to show for it,
except for the unimaginable grief of those who had lost
loved ones.
"Courage is not the
absence of fear, but rather the judgment that "something
else" is more important than fear." To John Kerry that
"something else" was our Country. Which is what John Kerry
believes in most fervently: Duty, Honor, Country -In or Out
of the White House. Draft evaders did not see it so.
Kerry fought in Viet Nam
and saw the futility of that war. He saw the casualties
mounting unabated without so much as a hint of eventual
victory. He returned to speak of his disapproval of the war
because he did not like what he had seen and heard,
including the constant inundation of lies out of Washington
and the Military about this war (sound familiar when they
refer to Iraq).
John Kerry had earned
the right to say what he chose to say about this most
terrible and unavailing of interim wars. He had earned the
right to discard the Metals and Ribbons that he alone had
earned. For Kerry, they may have become reminders of times
and places that he did not want to be reminded of. In any
event, this was a private and personal choice that in no way
was meant or intended to reflect any disrespect or contempt
for his brothers in arms. If any contempt can be attributed
to this act, it was for the war itself.
"Physician heal
thyself." If anyone gave "Aid and Comfort" to our enemy it
was those of you who evaded their Duty to Honor their
Country by turning your back on it in its time of need.
By your Evasion of
Service, you proclaimed your disapproval of this war, as
well as a contempt for those Men and Women who were fighting
it, louder and more clearly than anything John Kerry could
have said. And the enemy knew it. Just as it knew that men
like John Kerry, as much as they might rail against the war,
would fight again if called upon.
You are the ones who let
the men and women in Uniform of our Country down by not
making yourselves available to sustain their ranks, support
their efforts and replace the fallen. Not John Kerry. John
Kerry never let this Country or his fellow Service Men and
Women down or disparaged either in any way. But those of you
who chose not to show up for this war, did!
If anyone is so naive as
to think that the current administration is the only entity
that can deal effectively with Terrorism, you are deluding
yourself. John Kerry has had personal experience with terror
and has dealt decidedly and victoriously with it.
We are not only fighting
to eliminate Terrorism, but to re-establish our Nation’s
Integrity. And we are faltering and staggering in both
areas. Make no mistake about it, John Kerry can and will see
these problems resolved and our Nation’s Integrity and
Prominence restored. Thru an International Guardianship
against Terrorism, composed of many Nations, this malignancy
of Terrorism can be defeated. When one is attacked, all will
respond with resolute force. To attempt to confront this
Terrorist threat alone would be to our detriment. I believe
that John Kerry can forge such a most necessary alliance to
the full advantage of all Nations.
If those we elect are to
lead this Country with competence, they must recognize that
"Change is the only constant". There have been too many
miscalculations, too many mistakes made; too many lies told;
too many secrets kept by too few people. We have a
monumental mess on our hands, and it can’t be cleaned up by
those who made it without their admitting that they made it.
And this they will not do.
Consequently, Harry T’s
"Buck" continues to float endlessly thru the corridors of
the White House unclaimed and unacknowledged.
Do you want an
ever-smiling "Cheerleader" who has always managed to remain
on the sidelines, and keep himself out of the fray? Or do
you want a man who knows how to "Quarterback" a winning
Team?
A "Change" in the
leadership and a new face for this Country in November is
not only needed, it is critically essential for our
continuance as a recognized Leader in our world society.
Vote for John Kerry in
November and you will learn what Duty, Honor and Our Country
are all about.
Thomas O. Nass,
5th Marine
Division - WWII
Sacramento, CA
I just pray you are not breeding.
Yes, something is REALLY wrong, and it is the outrageously
traitorous hate and venom your paper spews. I'm sure the
terrorist just love reading your garbage. You wouldn't know
an honest man if he saved your miserable life. You should hang
your head in shame. Our President is a fine man and the
greater part of the American people know it. You, Sen.
Kennedy, Walter Cronkite and all of the other misguided
pathetic liberal democrats who don't give a wit about this
country but only the power they could wield were they
in charge. It is amazing that you people would do anything,
say anything and print anything to that end. You accuse
President Bush and the people you oppose of doing the very
things that you yourselves are guilty of, AND, you do it with
a straight face. You are such hypocrites. You are no better
than the scum that are at the very heart of the miseries of
this world, and CONTROL and oppression is all that matters to
you.
I just pray you are not breeding.
Pat Rapaduski
"Allowing others to be who they are frees you to be yourself"
VOTE BUSH/CHENEY '04
Progress in Iraq (5/1/04)
(This is from a National Guardsman from
Denison, Iowa - back on
leave)
As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in
Iraq, I
wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the
media.
They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has
happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of
you
during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest
at
night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is
noteworthy, I
thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of
things that
has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your
friends and
compare it to the version that your paper is producing)!!
-Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the
first time
ever in Iraq.
-Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations.
-Over 1500 schools have been renovated and ridded of the
weapons that were stored there so education can occur.
-The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off
loaded from ships faster.
-School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
-The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil in
August.
-The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did
before
the war.
-100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed compared to
35%
before the war.
-Elections are taking place in every major city and city
councils are
in place.
-Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
-Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
-Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the
country.
-Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by
side
with US soldiers.
-Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
-Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing
techniques to
prevent the spread of germs.
-An interim constitution has been signed.
-Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in
Iraq.
-Text books that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for
the
first time in 30 years.
Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us
there.
I have met many many people from Iraq that want us there and
in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we
talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a
good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute
me on these facts.
So If you happen to run into John Kerry, be sure to give him
my email address and send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier
will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted
with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email
this to a friend and let them know there are good things
happening.
Ray Reynolds, SFC
Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion
Tackling the President
(4/28/04)
The
reactions on President Bush and his National Security Advisor
, Miss Rice be it pro or contra, together with the quite
disgusting Democrat election campaign are indeed a reason to
worry. For the safety of the US President as well as the
security of the United States. Presuming oneself to be
president in September 2001 and without the present knowledge,
how would one have reacted on that collapsing Twin Towers? We
could also ask ourselves: Would we have done any better than
G.W. Bush. And that gives reason to a whole row of other
questions:
1:
The Patriot act: Would it have been acceptable to the US
population had this law passed before the 11th
of September and only based on the intelligence reports
that are now used to accuse the President of having ignored
that reports?
2:
There was hardly any protest during the attack on Afghanistan
Why did all this anti US and anti war protest started first
world wide after the attack on Iraq? Maybe because the events
of the 11th of September were too ‘fresh’ in memory
during the attack on Afghanistan? Does this mean that the US
only may act immediately after a terrorist attack on the US or
US interests?
3:
Trusting the NATO Allies in Europe and counting on their
loyalty was probably the Presidents worst supposition. Was no
historian or high ranking US military man , who served in
Europe, available to tell the President or his National
Security Advisor, Miss Rice, that especially the French would
not be loyal to the US? And would someone in the US believe
that this nation actually would not be loyal to the US?
4:
The President declared War on Terrorism. In view of the fact
that ALL Muslims in the world are called at different times to
a JIHAD against the US. This call for a Jihad concerns also
Muslims in the US. Does the President of the US allow his
compatriots to live with a ticking time bomb in their midst?
5:
The decision making process of the President and his staff has
been almost permanently under fire. Especially from the side
of the Democrats and, of course, the rest of the anti US
world. Including France and his political pet Belgium? Yes
indeed! The loudspeaker may be in Brussels, but the microphone
stands in Paris.
-
Had all this people access to the same
information as the President?
-
Would all this people together have one
(and the right) solution for the problems the President was,
and is, facing?
-
Were and are they all bearing the same
responsibility as G.W. Bush does?
6:
WMD or not, the US offered the people an opportunity to become
a democratic nation WITHOUT Saddam.
-
Could G.W. Bush expect to liberate a
country of normal thinking and reasonable people or not?
-
Could he expect the population of Iraq
to be cooperative and willing to reach that democratic
establishment?
-
Could he expect the ‘normal’ population
to behave as normal and socialized citizen or not? Indeed. He
could. But from the beginning after their liberation the
population behaved as street robbers, youth gangs, thieves and
murderers. G.W. Bush obviously took his lessons from the
liberation of Europe in 1945 and he was right with that. He
could have expected cooperation and a rather quick handover of
authority to a democratic Iraqi government and temporary under
the secure wings of the US forces. The fact that the
population of Iraq turned out to be totally a-social to their
own kind as well is something no one could have expected. That
so many Americans die by now is only reason to regret the
decision to put any effort in rebuilding Iraq and offer them a
new future
7:
Weapons of Mass Destruction. The anti US coalition of jolly
good old allies like that words. They sip it like wine, chew
on it and sniff the odor of it. The words turn in theirs
mouth’s into the venom they spit in the direction of the US
government.
-
Was there no reason for the US to have a
closer look at the kitchen of Saddam?
-
Had there not been a nuclear program in
Iraq?
-
Was there no minister in the Saddam
government who was called ‘chemical Ali’?
-
Have not thousands of Kurds been killed
by means of chemical weapons?
-
Was there not a Pakistani scientist who
spied in the nuclear installation in Petten, The Netherlands,
thus violating the generous hospitality rules of the Dutch and
has he not admitted that he sold nuclear knowledge to
different Islam countries to enable them to build an Islamic
nuclear bomb? Was him not given pardon by that famous US ally
Musjaraf of Pakistan?.
-
Why starting a war in Iraq to get some
answers if that answers also can be obtained by that famous
European allies like France and Germany? The first one sold
Saddam a complete nuclear reactor, together with the knowledge
to use it (till the Israeli’s decided that every practical
joke has its limitations and bombed the thing to scrap) and
the latter had that fantastic chemical factories of which the
director was glad to make a buck by selling his products to
Iraq. But were that nice governments willing to submit their
knowledge to the US? Of course not. Not even if they could
stop the US from going to war. There were WMD in Iraq and in
view of the threat, direct or indirect, to the US, no
President of the US could have avoided a closer look at the
kitchen of Saddam. He had to.
8:
The US is the only nation that supports Israel. Even if the
relations with the total of all Muslim countries and Europe
are at stake.
-
How comfortable would South Korea, Japan
and Taiwan be if the US took their hands from Israel?
-
How comfortable would many other
countries be if the US withdrew its forces and left that
countries to defend their own business?
-
I seem to remember that the governments
of the European countries during the period of the Third Reich
did not put very much effort in the protection of the Jews.
-
The support for Israel has since 1948
faded away and the less support Israel got, the more brutal
became the Palestinians. Israel was more or less blamed for
the terrorist attacks in Europe and the many hijackings
because they did not give in on the Palestinian claims. Israel
was left on his own and had to fight several wars to survive.
They won that wars. And why should a county that wins his wars
and conquers territory does not keep it. Is that not common
business? Or does Russia give the Germans their Koningsbergen
(Kaliningrad) back? And Belgium his German speaking part of
the province of Liege? And Poland half of its territory to the
Germans? Or Belorussia half of its territory to Poland. And
France not the Flemish part of Flanders, they conquered by
means of their last king, to Belgium. Of course not. It is all
war booty. So why should Israel give back parts of its war
booty. And with the experience of the holocaust. Why should
the Jews trust anybody with their safety? Did not all Jihad,
Hamas and Hezbollah leaders declare that the state of Israel
has to be destroyed? Many US presidents have tried to solve
the problem and no one succeeded. But G.W. Bush is the first
president who clearly stays right behind Israel. Even with the
execution of terrorists. The population of the US should be
grateful that there is at least one American for who a
handshake is a handshake. And that Koreans, Taiwanese and
the population of the Land of the Rising Fireballs may be
grateful as well.
9: In
the Netherlands was some years ago a man who stood up against
giving away the Netherlands, its marvelous social security
system, its language and the abuse of the hospitality of the
Dutch to anyone who reached Dutch soil.. He became a
politician and after a rather short time was a threat to the
regular political parties. The reaction from their side was
one of anger, insult, accusation of being an ultra |right and
finally a member of that always anti US socialist party, in
fact the second man in the labor party after PM Kok, created a
situation via the public media in which it seemed to be
justified from the moral point of view to kill that man. His
name was Pim Fortuyn. He WAS killed. The same situation
is by now created in the United States. American as well as
European public media condemn the Bush policy, are insulting
him and his staff up to the point of ridicule, critize every
decision and generally are creating a situation is which it is
justified, from the moral point of view, to kill him. Is it
not time that this media in the US stop imitating the European
public media and have a closer look at what is good for the
US. If that is not a new Bush administration. OK. But then
they should give as much attention to the alternatives as now
putting all efforts in reducing the moral authority of their
own President in this times of peril. Interesting to know is
that, after Pim Fortuyn was killed, that nice member of the
Labor Party and anti American politician considered his
comfortable seat in the left-wing establishment a bit to hot
for his buttocks and flew The Netherlands to . . . . . .yes,
that by him loathed United States of America. A good socialist
would consider to go back to the roots of the party and pick
up a job as street sweeper or similar. Not this fine
socialist. A well paid job at the World Bank as representative
of The Netherlands is more lucrative. Would he ever thinks
about Pim Fortuyn?
As I
mentioned before, the worst, but also the most forgivable
proposition of G.W. Bush was trusting the European Allies. Had
the whole of the western world, possessing the same moral
values and, then again, the Europeans as a united political
entity with the French ahead, chosen the side of the United
States (and I do NOT say the side of G.W. Bush), the message
to the Muslim world would have been clear. But not only the
President of the US was let down by the Europeans under
guidance of Chirac, but also the whole of the population of
the US.
Even
if a friendship is under tension due to different points of
view, an unconditional friend grabs his weapons and runs to
assistance when things go wrong, irrespective of the outcome
of the fight. And things GO wrong. But Chirac, a man who only
had the opportunity to grow up in a free France ( by the mercy
of the many young US GIs who rest under the many tombstones in
the many war cemeteries in France) failes that as well.
The
US is an independent country, possesses the most powerful
military organization in the world and is capable of defending
its interests, territory and integrity as a political entity
in every sense and, if necessary, against the whole world.
To
defend their values, and only that, a war is fully justified.
Again, we might wonder how any other US President would have
reacted. Although this is a personal consideration, I believe
that the US should be glad that G.W. Bush was president when
the Twin Towers collapsed. A democrat of the Carter type,
however honest, would mentally have been too complicated to
react properly. G.W. Bush has had the toughest experience a US
President can imagine. It would be foolish to turn in his
acquired experience, in this times of peril, for the yet
unknown political qualifications, and unknown strength of
backbone of any other candidate, be it republican or democrat.
He only has to learn one more thing: Turn the Jordan over the
heads of his so-called allies.
C. Brouwer
Ret.
WO1 RNLA
Praying for our troops
By Ayodele Thomas
I just wanted to take a moment to
voice my support of our troops who are risking their lives on
my behalf, although I do not support the Bush administration
in its decision to declare war. Too often, discussions of war
and peace become polarized into anti-war vs. pro-troop, but
that narrow view doesn't capture the feelings of most
Americans who are against the war. I appreciate our troops so
much that I would rather them be home than fighting a war
that I do not see as just or immediately necessary. The Bush
administration has tried to make it seem as though this is a
good war and that God is on the American side. However, as
Jimmy Carter stated in his Nobel acceptance speech, "War may
sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it
is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn to live
together in peace by killing each other's children."
I pray daily for all of those who
are touched directly and indirectly by the war. I pray that
our soldiers will be able to return home - alive. I pray for
families who have been torn apart and for Americans who seem
to have forgotten that it is OK to disagree. I pray for the
citizens of Iraq and yes, even their soldiers.
I believe that my God is not just
the God of the United States - he is the God of the world. He
does not just love those who claim citizenship in these United
States, He loves all of humanity. We should not just be saying
"God Bless America" nor should we assume that God is happy
with our nation's current actions or our lack of action in the
past. Many of the reasons for which our nation's leaders claim
we are going to war today are problems that we helped to
create by supporting evil dictators to meet our purposes or by
ignoring them because they were not strategically important. I
believe that God would want us to act on the side of justice
and peace, whether or not it is convenient or strategic for
us.
I ask that all of those who
believe in the redeeming power of prayer, whether you agree
with the decision to go to war or not, would join me in prayer
not just for America, but for our world.
Consequences of
Democracy
We should stop throwing stones at Bush. The truth is, more
Americans want war than oppose it. Bush reflects the majority,
despite the massive protests. The UK is different. Blair
opposes 80% of his people. The attitude of people toward
democracy is troubling. The electorate is responsible for the
actions of their government whether or not they voted. No one
in a democracy can call himself or herself an innocent
civilian should they suffer as a result of their government’s
actions. However in a dictatorship, people who oppose the
government cannot change it by any means and are the real
innocent civilians. To those who say that the US must kill the
dictator, I ask if the US will attack China next, the world’s
greatest violator of human rights?
We need
independence from foreign energy. However it won’t happen
unless it is made a national priority like the space race.
IEEE reported the permanent loss of 100,000 electronic and
nearly 3 times as many other engineering jobs in the US last
year. We need a leader with FDR’s vision, to put these
unemployed engineers to work and solve the energy issue. This
would be a long-term investment and cheaper than the massive
spending on weapons of mass destruction and even “Mothers of
All Bombs”!!!.
One
reason for rise in anti-Bushism around the world (not
necessarily anti-Americanism) is that Washington’s negotiating
style mirrors that of Tel Aviv. Such a style is not disastrous
to the stronger party, when the weaker party is as weak as the
Palestinians. When the weaker party is like North Korea (if I
recall history, they hurt the US pretty bad, many years
ago!!!) this style won’t work. Israel wants it that way and
the world sees the result. Israel is willing to live with the
consequences. Are we?
Ed D'Silva
A Message From Canada - Stand
Up
and Oppose
that which Americans Believe
In.
There
comes a time in everyone's life when he should stand up and
and be counted. I do not think that a country such as the
United States Of America should listen to the rest of the
world as to the Iraqi question. Your Country cannot be
pressured by fear as Kuwait cannot be influenced by hunger, as
Korea cannot be bribed like Spain or bought as Turkey. You as
Americans are perfectly capable of making the decision for or
against the war in Iraq .As a Canadian who is totally against
the war with Iraq or any other country I trust the people of
the U.S. to make the right decision. Your country is full of
courageous people that are not afraid to stand up and oppose
that which they believe in. Your government is by the people,
for the people, and of the people. You are not a focus group
you are the people. The United States Of America is the home
of the brave and the land of the free, let your voice be
heard.
IN GOD
WE TRUST
Tim Barnes
See special Article from Rita Kidd "A
Voice From America" in Response to Byrd Speech
Byrd - We Not Follow
Mutely Behind
Finally a politician with the guts to come out against the
war. Hurrah for Senator Byrd. During the Iraq war protest
march on February 15th, Canadians marched in the tens of
thousands against such a war. Americans visiting our city,
Vancouver, B.C, interviewed for our local news cast, were so
careful in their comments so as not to appear "anti-American".
The American pro-war populace is scaring the pants off those
of us north of the border. And we can't help but feel that
should we not follow mutely behind, we will be the next
target, for god-knows-what reason the Bush administration
might dream up.
Karin
Canada
February 18, 2003
Byrd - Trying to Make a
Difference.
If you would please pass on my praise to Senator Byrd I would
appreciate it.
I read the speech you gave on February 12 and was blown away.
I was
moved to rage on numerous occasions, which I'm sure was the
point, and
was relieved that there was someone out there who is paying
attention,
more specifically someone in a position of power. I was very
disappointed that there was no media coverage on it, that
alone says a
great deal about the world in which we live. But thank you
for
speaking those words and at least trying to make a difference.
Hilary
Los Angeles
February 17, 2003
Kennedy Urges Senate to Reconsider Bush War Authority
Ask Your Senator to Reclaim
Senate Responsibility
The après
State-of-the-Union comments were interrupted with breaking
news: Sen. Ted Kennedy had just announced that the next day he
would go to the Senate floor to ask his colleagues to vote to
reclaim their right to give permission for war.
If we are to stand as a beacon of hope and democracy, then we
must honor our own democratic institutions and Constitution.
Being a U S Senator includes accepting the responsibility for
declaring war.
Wouldn’t it be
wonderful if all Senators were showered with requests from
their own constituents to vote with Kennedy on this? You can
help make that happen.
We all saw the
overwhelming standing applause from both sides of the aisle on
the war half of President Bush’s speech. A debate in the
Senate would not likely stop the war. But it would force our
Senators to be accountable. It would restore our
Constitutional protection against waging war without
representation.
Please contact your
own two Senators TODAY. Ask them to vote for Sen. Kennedy’s
motion. You can find their contact information on the Senate
web-site. You can find the contact information here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
or you can follow the news link menu on the left side of The
Modern Tribune homepage.
Please send an
email to your friends and family asking them to do the same.
Be an example of the courage you wish your Senators would
display.
It’s not too late –
yet.
Pennington Geis
January
29, 2003
Countries Get their
Legitimacy and Power from the Will of the People and the
Action they take is Ultimately in their Citizens' Names.
I am writing to supply you with another argument for your
position in the Modern Tribune. As a criminologist, I find
the words coming out of Bush's mouth regarding the
responsibilities of Iraq amazing, particularly since he claims
to want to protect our civil liberties. If he really wants to
protect civil
liberties and show the American belief in human rights that he
claims he has as
a "compassionate" conservative, then he should remember how
our criminal
justice system works. The burden to prove whether someone is
guilty or not is
not on the defense, but on the prosecution. The whole world
knows that Saddam Hussein is a maniacal dictator, but there
are others "worse" than him. In light of our criminal justice
system, which Bush says is the best in the world,
then I believe that the burden rest with the U.S. to show that
Iraq does have
WMD and is planning to use them soon.
Another advantage of American criminal justice is that we have
"discovery" so
both sides can see the incriminating and exculpatory evidence.
We also have a
judge or jury who decides the fate of those individuals who
opt to go to trial.
While I would not advocate revealing to Iraq what information
we supposedly
have, I do believe that our allies in the UN must be given
concrete information
that is current, not about what he did 15 to 20 years ago.
They operate like a
jury and decide the fate of Iraq and whether they should
commit their nations
to war. How dare Bush and his administration bad mouth
Russia, France,
Germany, and so on, for not taking him at his word. After
all, he did steal
the presidency, and has yet to live up to his promises to the
American people.
The Bush administration says it has irrefutable proof, well I
have yet to see
it. DNA is irrefutable proof and attorneys can't wait to use
it. If Bush's
information was so clear cut, he would have laid out his
evidence in depth to
our allies in the UN. Unlike Bush and Blair, other countries
recognize that
they get their legitimacy and power from the will of the
people and that any
action they take is ultimately in their citizens' names.
Therefore, they
listen to their concerns without telling them how
"unpatriotic" they are in an
attempt to obtain their conformity. Apparently, Bush lives in
a different
dimension.
Melissa A. Logue
January 30, 2003
Ultimately Unsustainable and
Self-defeating
"A policy that sets the U.S. above and apart from the rules
that other states are expected to follow is ultimately
unsustainable and self-defeating," said Daryl G. Kimball,
executive director of the Arms Control Association, Washington
D.C. "Perpetuating U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons as a key
component of protecting U.S. security will only make the
acquisition of nuclear weapons more attractive to others, not
less."
Jeremy
The
Wrong Prescription
Finally, the elderly receive a prescription drug plan from the
government! Unfortunately, it is the wrong prescription. The
Bush administration's drug prescription plan is not exactly
what the doctor ordered. It would force many of the elderly
out of the Medicare system and into private HMOs to receive
drug prescription benefits. The Medicare system has been the
backbone of health care for the elderly since the sixties.
Unfortunately, it is not without its' faults. Over the years,
many seniors and their advocates have lobbied for adequate
prescription drug benefits. As Senator Kennedy recently noted,
at a Harvard University forum, ""Medicare is a solemn promise
between the government and the people, not just a potential
profit center for HMOs and the Insurance industry."
Previously, the private sector failed to demonstrate it could
meet the chronic needs of elderly. "That why we got Medicare,"
added Kennedy. Recently, many seniors were left high and dry
when private companies fled the regions -- complaining that
"the costs of covering the elderly were just too high." Ari
Fleischer said the president, "believes that seniors should
have more choices and options in the health care plans." John
Rother, Director of Policy and Strategy for AARP, believes
"...there needs to be a drug benefit for everyone regardless
of which part of the system they're in..." At a time, when the
elderly need special attention with their health care needs,
Bush hands them the wrong prescription
.
Doris C
January 28, 2003
A
Forgotten warrior of A forgotten war.
I often
wonder how many of those calling for war have ever themselves
participated in one? How many of them have witnessed babies,
crawling amongst dismembered bodies, searching for their
parents? How many have smelled decaying bodies? How many have
charged through a town, or village after it had been bombed
continuously for days on end? How many of them still suffer
from nightmares, from memories of war incidences that happen
years ago?
I leave them with this... its mostly civilians that's killed
in wars... Soldiers can take care of themselves. We have our
trenches, foxholes, tunnels and underground bunkers.
And if I may refresh their memories for a moment, Bush Sr,
bombed Iraqi 40 days during his war of 1991, and guess what,
Saddam still lives. But many innocent women, children,
mothers, and seniors died... What about them? Do they count?
Curtis
A Forgotten warrior.
of A forgotten war.
Our President is Getting Bad Advice
Count me and everyone I know as against war with Iraq. Our
president is
getting bad advice on this and many other issues.
Susan
Support
for Our Country's Leaders and Less Criticism
My name
is Christina. IM in middle school. I have a problem...... see
IM reading the news and I see many people opposing the
president. You know, kinda knocking him down. I feel its OK to
disagree. But to much opposition, and we got a big problem.
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion but news papers as a
whole should support the decisions that our president makes.
They shouldn't automatically bash him because he's a
Republican.
Not many
people in this country have been the president. And as we all
know the presidents job isn't that easy. And the one thing he
really needs right now is support. Its hard to head a whole
country. All IM asking is to see more support for our
country's leaders and less criticism.
Thank
you and may God continue to bless America!
Chrissy
The
Washington Protest--The Consequences
What
are the consequences of the Washington Protest? Here are a
few-- many more cartoonists portray Bush "going it alone." In
Washington, the administration has doubled its' efforts to
sway public opinion. The State department has released a
document (33 pages long) entitled "Apparatus of lies" to
reinforce Iraq's "brutal record of deceit." From Turkey, party
leaders said that US should heed the peace call. Recap Tayyip
Erdogan, Head of the Justice and Development party praised the
peacemaking efforts and noted, "The world's decision makers
must heed this rising call for peace." As the Peace Movement
efforts in the US strengthen-- Bush's ratings are slipping
into the low fifties. The Washington Protest may well indeed
prove to be the tip of another ICEBERG --and George Bush's own
"serious consequences". Many Thanks,
Doris
Real Primary
Focus is the Degradation and Division of the Country
It appears that
your real primary focus is the degradation and division of the
country which allows you to publish this deception. I
hope and pray that those of us who recognize the immense value
of this country prevail in our efforts to protect it.
Much of the blame for incidents like 9/11 rests squarely on
the shoulders of cowards and traitors who are constantly
working to undo America. This is the only purpose that
you can have when spreading material such as what I have read
here.
Gregory
Response by The Modern Tribune
I believe we live in the greatest nation on earth and
that it is our duty as Americans to uphold the noble ideals
that made us so great. I believe that we breach our personal
duty as citizens when we fail to be informed and to speak out
against that with which we disagree. Facts - not mere
accusation - must always be our guiding light. Truth and
justice must be our goal. Revealing truth or expressing
opinion should never be confused with lack of patriotism or
cowardice. In fact, those of us who do express their opinions
are subject to adverse consequences.
We do not
protect America or its future generations by exposing it to
greater threat and creating enemies we would not already have.
Bombing other countries does nothing to stop terrorism - the
real enemy. It adds fuel to their fire and bolsters the
argument that the US wants to dominant the world, control a
major oil supply, and change their way of life forcibly.
The primary
cause of 9/11 was a radical extremist element that hates
American because of United States policy in the mid-East (and
some argue, because of our way of life.) It
is also the result of a lax US security which apparently did
not recognize the extent of the terrorist threat on our
homeland. I do no recall any real or strong opposition to any
war since Vietnam. This war on Iraq - since Saddam is not a
security threat and it takes places amid a tense mid-East
setting - where oil "could" be the true aim, requires scrutiny.
Would you
support the war if the sole reason was to get oil? How many
American lives are a barrel of oil worth? Would you support
the war if it were part a strategy to take over the world? The
war on Iraq is not necessary to protect American. and
the billions to be spent of bombing would be better spent
securing America.
Do you
really believe that those who oppose this war on Iraq do not
support American? We are trying to keep American on the course
that made American great - its ideals, it's constitution, it's
process of governance, the Bill of Rights, and the freedom
many have died for. We do not want America to change what it
stands for and become the bully of the world because it has
the might to do so.
D. Lindley Young
Editor
THE MODERN TRIBUNE
editor@themoderntribune
Gregory's Reply to Modern Tribune
Gregory has set
forth each point made by the Modern Tribune and has responded
to each. The point made by the Modern is not indented.
Gregory's reply to each point is indented. He makes some
interesting points. See our reply following Gregory's
position.
I believe we live in the greatest nation on earth and that it
is our
duty as Americans to uphold the noble ideals that made us so
great.
We agree on principle here. I suspect we disagree as to
method.
I think it is our duty to protect other, weaker peoples, too.
If that makes us the world's policemen, so be it.
I believe that we breach our personal
duty as citizens when we fail to
be informed and to speak out against that with which we
disagree. |
Again, a
truism. However, it is the height of arrogance to assume
we can even approach the level of information supplied to our
country's top officials (and especially the President). When
you
play armchair quarterback in this situation, you are playing
without
all the facts. I suggest that your definition of being
informed
is based on your collection of the opinions of persons with
whom you
agree.
I believe we also must act in defiance of wrongs and that
with which
we disagree. I disagree with terrorism. I disagree with
Saddam's
support of terrorism, efforts in building towards agression,
efforts
in bio and nuclear weapons. The big difference here is that
we go
on the offensive to stop Saddam and others like him, not to
take over
neighboring countries. Germany belongs to the Germans.
Japan belongs to the Japanese. Iraq should
belong to the Iraquis. None of us should live in
fear of the likes of Hitler, Hirohito, or Hussein.
Facts - not mere accusation - must
always be our guiding light. Truth
and justice must be our goal.
Laudible words,
an excellent example of using a "given" to lend
credibility to your point. But here again, you do not have
the
facts. Most of the facts governing this situation are not
available to us.
Incidentally, there are some professors in Madison, Wisconsin
who
teach your method of argumentation. They are also
self-avowed
communists, and base their grading on your politics, not on
the
quality of your writing.
Revealing truth or expressing opinion
should never be confused with lack
of patriotism or cowardice.
Am I to infer
that there are no instances of lack of patriotism?
Is there no cowardice?
If you blame America first, you are not a patriot. Period.
I wish
Americans would all subscribe to the attitude, "My country,
right or
wrong. When it's right - to keep it right. When it's wrong
- to make
it right."
I am not a bad person simply because I believe that some
people are
un-patriotic. I believe that patriotism is good and
cowardice is
bad. I believe that sometimes there is no "gray area".
Truth is
like that. And truth needs to be clearly differentiated from
opinion.
In fact, those of us who do express
their opinions are subject to
adverse consequences.
You lost me on
this one. I believe that you get to express your
opinions in my country. I believe that you should not
express your
opinions as factual. I also believe that facts can be hard
to come by.
If someone smites me because he does not like my opinion,
that's the
way the pickle squirts in the big city, baby. I have the
freedom to
smite him back if I can handle it.
We do not protect America or its future
generations by exposing it to
greater threat and creating enemies we would not already
have.
I do not
believe we are doing so. Iraq is an enemy. Those who
have used religion as an excuse to murder (as opposed to
'kill')
are our enemies. Those who adopt non-democratic principles
to
the detriment and discomfort of their populaces are enemies
of
democracy and by extension, are our enemies.
Bombing other countries does nothing to
stop terrorism - the real
enemy. It adds fuel to their fire and bolsters the argument
that the
US wants to dominant the world, control a major oil supply,
and
change their way of life forcibly.
This is simply
a reiteration of the old leftist anti-American
mantra. I would have more respect for your arguments if you
just
admitted that you despise anything right-wing and cling
lovingly
to all things left-wing. Just admit you hate GW. I will
admit
I think he is pretty good - mostly.
Bombing is one instrument that has been used to save many
more
lives than it took. (you gave your opinion, this is mine) I
would
direct your attention to Germany, 1944. We blew them into
submission.
Even though there were anti-war people then, too, it was the
right thing
to do in the big theatre. Bombing got the attention of the
radical
rulers of Japan, too. The war ended. Many more lives were
saved
on all sides.
The real enemies are the individuals who choose to perpetrate
terrorism. Terrorism itself is a concept. The people are the
enemies. As for the other points you make, they are just
your opinions, not facts. You are free to suspect these
motives, but that does not make them true.
The primary cause of 9/11 was a radical
extremist element that hates
American because of United States policy in the mid-East.
If that is
true, and I suspect it is, why are you basing your
arguments on doctrine that is in lock-step with these
radicals?
And further, am I to infer that you are excusing their
actions
because of some "justifiable" difference of opinion with
American
policy? They get to blow up the WTC towers because they
don't like
our policy, but we shouldn't strike them for ACTING against
us?
I don't think you can say this and love America
simultaneously.
It is also the result of a lax US
security which apparently did not
recognize the extent of the terrorist threat on our homeland.
Right on! And
let's remember who emasculated those departments
responsible for our security. I believe that it is a dirty
game
"out there", and when you play in a dirty game with no rules,
playing a clean game and following some "rules" will get you
beaten.
(Look at the British forces wearing bright colors and
marching in
formation against the American Colonialist Revolutionaries
who were
hiding behind trees and rocks, .wearing dull colors. Who got
whipped?)
I do no recall any real or strong
opposition to any war since Vietnam.
Where were you
when the Gulf War started? The news media, especially
on television, railed against that action until they figured
out that a huge majority of the American public was
supportive. The media's tune changed almost overnight.
(Pretty good evidence that the news media is probably not the
best source of data in our efforts to be "informed".)
This war on Iraq - since Saddam is not a security threat and
it takes
places amid a tense mid-East setting - where oil could be the
true aim,
requires scrutiny.
Careful, you are calling opinion "fact" here. Do you really
believe
Saddam is not a threat? We are fighting a war against
terrorists AND
anyone who supports, aids or protects terrorists. I believe
Saddam to
be one of the key players. Even all of the evidence we are
privy to
points in that direction.
Would you support the war if the sole
reason was to get oil?
Irrelevant
question since it is not based on facts. I believe that oil
figures into the equation. I also believe that there is no
sin in that,
since a lot of our chosen lifestyle is based on many natural
resources,
among which are oil. It is in America's best interests to
see oil not
controlled by the likes of Saddam. I support things that are
in our
best interests.
The question is irrelevant, but I will play your game here.
No. If it
were the only reason, what moron would support the war? But
as I said
it is, in fact, only one of a great many variables in the
equation.
How many American lives are a
barrel of oil worth?
How many human
lives was the horror of 9/11 worth? This question and the
one following show that you are letting your emotion get away
with you. Or else you are one of the elite framers of all
this anti-American rhetoric. Even if these are rhetorical
questions, they are a shameful obfuscation of the argument.
You started out so well, too!
Would you support the war if it were
part a strategy to take over the world?
Do you really
believe that those who oppose this war on Iraq do not
support American?
I believe that many of the opposition to the war do not
support America. I watched, for example, a bit of the coverage
of the marches on D.C. The individuals I saw and the comments
I heard were a playback of a bunch of drug-fogged
non-gainfully employed individuals contributing
nothing toward the betterment of society, reminiscent of the
late 60's. I believed then (at 17 and 18) as I do now. And
my beliefs now are supported by a lot of years in the
Real World watching what is really "going down."
|
We are trying to keep American on the course that made
American great - its ideals, it's constitution, it's
process of governance, the Bill of Rights, and the
freedom many have died for |
You should add
Mom and Apple Pie to your method here. I am
picking on your dialectic again. ;-)
We do not want America to change what it
stands for and become the
bully of the world because it has the might to do so.
I do want
America to stand up to other bullies in the world because
it is the right thing to do. And we have the might to do so.
Please point to any factual inaccuracies. We gladly correct
them.
Also, see
www.themaoderntribune.com "Letters to Editor."
We posted your email and a response.
When you start using facts, if I find what I believe to be
inaccuracies,
I will take you up on your kind offer.
Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the forum
you have
here.
Gregory
| Answer to Gregory's Reply
The Modern Tribune is an clearly an "opinion" magazine.
We form the opinions based upon available facts and must
discern for ourselves, as you do, which facts we believe
in a world where it is at best difficult in many cases to
determine what is the truth. Yes, we, as anyone, tend to
believe more readily that which our instinct and
experience supports.
The Modern Tribune is clearly and openly opposed to
Bush's approach to the War on Iraq and our biggest pick is
his unnecessary and provocative rhetoric which we believe
is doing more harm than good. For example, calling Korean
President Li a "pygmy," defining the enemy as "evil" (with
religious connotations), announcing "nuclear" hit lists
and a policy of pre-emptive "nuclear" attacks cannot not
be productive in a war on terrorism which requires
multi-national cooperation. I believe that these are
"facts" which are not disputed. Yes, opinion comes into
play when one disagrees with the necessity for such
rhetoric under circumstances which makes an already
volatile world more dangerous. The Bush rhetoric has
painted US into a dangerous corner with the EU, Russia,
China, Germany, France, and many others aligning against
the Bush extremes, his hawkish administration (Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Rove, and Rice). There is a
better way and it is up to US to find it.
The Modern Tribune strongly supports the war on
terrorism and a strong "Defend America" policy. America as
a country, the American people, and the idea of
America is "first - always." However, Presidents,
politicians, and us everyday people do not always make
decisions that are in the best interests of America and
the world. Many decisions have political motive. History
is replete with the blunders of nations, their military,
and their leaders with political motive at its root.
You, in effect ask us to trust Bush because he has
information that we do not have. Well from what I have
seen according to reports to Congress by Mueller, the CIA
does not have it either and neither do our Congressional
leaders. President Johnson and the Congress passed the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution based upon false information,
and the result was a lengthy Vietnam war that cost tens of
thousand of American lives. Although military secrets that
could cost American lives should be carefully guarded, the
general reasons for war should not. The public has the
right to know them. I believe that those "general reasons"
have been presented - at least they have been argued by
Bush to this nation and to the United Nations. Based upon
what Bush himself has argued, there is not sufficient
"evidence" to justify a reasonable belief that there is an
"imminent threat" to the US by Iraq sufficient to justify
a military takeover of Iraq with unforeseen and
unpredictable consequences. "Threat" alone is not
sufficient under our Constitution. There are millions of
potential threats. The argument that Bush knows
things that we do not know and that we should just trust
him is simply untenable in view of the high stakes in a
representative democracy. If you are correct that we
are uninformed, then Bush is not doing his job or the
American people are being lead into a war without
sufficient information to form a proper opinion.
The difference between bombing Germany or Japan to as
you argue to save lives (which it probably did) and that
of bombing Iraq now, is that Germany and Japan were
aggressor "nations", who actually attacked US (Pearl
Harbor) or were invading allies. There is no evidence that
Iraq comes anywhere close to that type of "imminent"
present threat. There is no evidence to tie Iraq to 9/11.
Containment and alternatives to military force brought
down the USSR. Gandhi freed India from British rule
without firing a shot. Martin Luther King change the
racial politics of America with non-violence. We must
contain the enemy, fight terrorism, protect our borders
and homeland, and be patient enough to let the strength of
right overcome that which is wrong. The idea of democracy,
glasnost, perestroika, and dente lead to the fall of the
USSR, not military attack.
Iraq is contained. We are going through Saddam's
underwear. Yes, he is a liar and playing games. Yes, he is
a ruthless dictator. Yes, he probably has WMD.
Although Bush asserts that Saddam poses a "serious threat"
to America, it has been 11 years since Iraq can be called
an aggressor - the invasion of Kuwait - and that
aggression may have been based, at least in part, on an
American eye wink from the US Ambassador to Iraq - April
Gaspie. There is a strong case that Saddam will not use
WMD except for his very survival. He does not appear to be
suicidal. When warned by Collin Powell, during the Gulf
War, that there would be severe consequences if Saddam
used WMD, Saddam did not use them although he was being
overwhelmingly defeated. Saddam may be a ruthless
dictator, but, Saddam does not appear to want to die or
loose his power. Suicidal people do not normally build
monuments to themselves. The US should not make an alleged
maniac a martyr.
The war on Iraq is not reasonable, especially without
substantial multi-national approval. Conjecture and
speculation as to what Saddam may do at some time in the
future should not be enough sacrifice the lives of
hundreds of thousands of "people," create a negative
global economic impact (if not recession), cause the
alienation of allies and potential allies in the war on
terrorism, and create additional hatred towards America
across the world. We may have assume the role of the
worlds policeman because of our might, but, that role
should not be unilaterally imposed. |
I’m a Houstonian and I haven’t talked with anyone – not one
person - who believes we should go to war with
Iraq at this time. There is no justification at this time.
The United States is insane for building up the current
levels of troops based on the information we have available
to us. If this were really about
weapons of mass
destruction, why would France so openly oppose our course of
action?
Bush Motives:
-
A good number think Bush’s
motives are about “controlling oil”
-
Many believe the motive is
an “obsessive resentment”.
-
Most think it is about a
strong desire for power in order to control the behavior
of others - countries and their people.
David
Just discovered your site while searching re Howard Dean -
who I think is our best hope for 2004! I really like your
coverage and will pass it on to friends.
Nina
Response by The Modern Tribune
I am hopeful that John
Kerry, Howard Dean or someone will surface with a strong
anti-war strategy that involves a multi-national approach to
protecting America and the world. There are to many "me to"
candidates on the Bush approach to war which do not
stand out from the pack nor differentiate the Democratic
Party. I believe in a strong "Defend America First"
approach, but, creating additional enemies and hatred
towards America makes the situation worse. We all need to be
proactive with our beliefs in order to cause change. If Bush
is reelected (and has not yet destroyed the world) it would
signal the world that there is approval of Bush's new
approach of threats, name calling, pre-emptive nuclear
attack, and the "new" race for nuclear weapons. This is not
good. Bush must be replaced for the good of the world.
What a shame.
We have a
President who is not afraid to speak the truth, and he
accepts his responsibility to not only protect America now,
but in the future as well.
He is not going
to gloss things over and wait for some future administration
to handle it.
You can be
proactive or reactive.
You can put out
fires or prevent them.
For over 11
years we have tried diplomacy with Saddam Hussein, it will
never work. If left to his own vices he will hurt this
country and it's citizens again.
Congratulations, you are aiding our enemies.
I thank God for
a president who has the courage to call a spade a spade, one
who chooses to be proactive instead of reactive.
God bless
America.
God bless
President Bush.
There are no
easy answers, but the way things have been done in the past
has not worked.
Not I nor you
or any of your columnist can second guess the President's
decisions, you think you can but it is not possible, we do
not have access to the same information or facts. We can
express our opinions and we all can be wrong at any time.
I do not agree
with everything our government does. But I do support it.
Response by The Modern Tribune
Bush is more
than "proactive," he is "provocative." He appears bent on war
with to many countries - his hit list. I believe it is
our duty as Americans to ask questions and interject into the
debate which will determine the destiny of the world. As you
are probably aware, the public reason for the war has changed
numerous times. First, Saddam was behind 9/11 and worked with
Bin Laden. Then it was to liberate the Iraqi people. Finally,
he is a treat to our security because he has WMD and is trying
to get nuclear weapons. In all cases, Bush believes the US is
justified to attack first with nuclear weapons if "he"
believes at sometime in the future - no matter how remote - a
country is a threat to the US. Any one of those stated reasons
are good enough for Bush. Because Bush's reasons for war are
so spurious many question the real motive - oil, weapons sale,
or world domination.
I believe
all sides should be considered and that in general the public
is not informed enough. Secret reasons for going to war and
concealment of alleged evidence to support a war is an abuse
of Presidential power and contrary to the "advice and consent"
provisions of the Constitution as well as the publics right to
know.
I support
the Bush efforts to present America as strong - we are. But, I
believe his choice of "rhetoric" is unnecessary and reckless.
In Bush's famous "axis of evil" speech, the phrase was changed
from "axis of hatred" to "evil" because "evil" had religious
and theological overtones. Bush does not have to pit religions
or cultures or resort to name calling to protect America. He
is not putting out fires, he is creating them and increasing
the number of enemies.
I strongly
support and believe in our troops and their dedication is a
tribute to this nation. However, I must question a leadership
that would put their lives on the line for no compelling
reason. What price should our soldiers pay "now" when Iraq
poses no imminent treat to us and Saddam has shown he will not
use WMD against us (the Gulf War) and has been contained for
11 years? Containment gives ideas the opportunity to prevail.
It worked with Russia. Patience and the idea of freedom will
prevail.
Bombing
nations does not stop terrorism which hides in the shadows.
War upon nations - which entails bombing and killing many
innocent people - does not protect our homeland, it creates
misery and hatred abroad. We spent $2.5 billion bombing
Afghanistan, yet, are only willing to contribute $10 million
to help that country rebuild. Does that seem right to you? It
is more important to destroy than build. The destroy to
protect mentality is misplaced.
We have the
cart before the horse. We should protect our borders and
contain our enemy. Aggression in the form of military attack
on a nation should only occur as a last resort when necessary
to protect ourselves. It may be aiding the enemy to support
the war since it is not a just or reasonable war. By
supporting the war one acts as a recruiting tool for the
terrorists and creates hatred towards Americans, not just the
leadership.
D. Lindley Young
Editor
THE MODERN TRIBUNE
editor@themoderntribune
I live in the
Georgia, aka "the bible belt", and what amazes me is when I
talk to these pro - Bush people and I ask them "Why did you
vote for bush". The most common answer I get is because he
practices Christianity. I don't know much about Christianity,
but I know for sure Jesus preached peace. It seems the common
Christian belief is love God, kill everyone else.
James
Response by The Modern Tribune
There are a lot of Christians that oppose
war. They have been very active in organizing anti-war
protests. The Catholic Church has determined that the war on
Iraq is not a "just war." We should not judge all Christians
by Bush. His positions on preventative war and first strike
nuclear attacks are probably as far removed from Christianity
as they are from the American way. According to one Texas
paper, Bush believes he is answering a "call from God"
to ri |
