Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

There is only one war we have to win. It is the educational war.

Unfortunately, we are losing this war. We are destroying the sound and natural logic of our kids by endless broadcasting of stupefying commercials. The crowning example is “the more you spend, the more you save”. When those kids grow up, some of them get elected like President Bush and tell us to keep spending in the middle of war in order to defeat our enemy. Such elected leaders teach us that the gigantic national debt and ever-increasing budget and trade deficits are good for our economy.

We are losing our common sense.

Here is a trillion dollar question. If we shouldn’t have been in the Iraq war, why do we have to win it at all cost?

If we don’t understand a big picture, let’s try something what’s easier to comprehend, like a bar brawl. That’s one thing we should never be in.

Do we have to win it?

Here is a hint. There are no winners in events of that kind for any decisive victory leads you directly to a prison.

Lord Izet

Charlotte, NC

Mar 27 2007 - 8:56am

Web Letter

If I understood President Bush well, we are going to stay in Iraq indefinitely for any premature announcement of withdrawal date would make the enemy wait for it. What prevents the enemy from using the same tactic 20 years later?

What prevents our enemy from ceasing its attacks for a year or so and after withdrawal of our troops to launch the violence again?

Since when do the results of our actions depend upon what our enemy thinks of it?!

It’s not important what kind of action the enemy might like. Far more important is what course of action we like.

If we accomplished our objectives in Iraq (destroyed non-existent WMD and dethroned local dictator), is there any reason for our troops to stay longer?

We have to stop adding new objectives to the mission of our troops. We cannot use our military to make the Iraqis love us.

I am no military expert but I know the shortest way to sour good relations is to overstay the welcome of your host.

The question is what the Iraqi people are telling us.

We would help the Iraqis far more if we would give them as financial aid only 25 percent of the yearly cost to keep our troops deployed in Iraq for as long as President Bush wants to stay the course.

Kenan Porobic

Charlotte, NC

Mar 26 2007 - 2:29pm

Web Letter

In his speech on the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, President Bush gave his support for the Democratic proposal to withdraw the US troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.

President Bush solemnly declared that the success in Iraq is a matter of months, not days or weeks.

Any success coming in 2009 would be a matter of years. Since President Bush never lied to the American public, we can rest assured our troops would be home by the end of 2008.

Thanks God they will be going home together with President Bush.

Kenan Porobic

Charlotte, NC

Mar 21 2007 - 9:15am

Web Letter

I doubt the accuracy of the claim made in this editorial that there would be "tremendous educational and practical progress" made on opposing the war just by losing a vote on the withdrawal plan put forward by Rep. Barbara Lee.

While Lee's plan may be better in terms of appearing to bring the war to an end more quickly, being unable to pass it is not sound politics. We are past the point of making symbolic gestures, which is what this editorial appears to endorse.

But what happens next? What do you do after the Lee plan fails? Do you just say, "Well everyone has been educated. Good work; let's go home."

What will we have learned: splitting the broad opposition to Bush with demands that are too sharply on the left and making symbolic but highly moral (to some people) oppositional statements fail to end the war.

Pelosi's plan is more than a symbolic gesture.It would make withdrawal the law.

The tactics for winning a fight in Congress offered in the editorial would hand much hard-fought political momentum back to Bush, who will then claim that the Democrats have not been able to offer a sound alternative and thus his stay-the-course/escalation is the only alternative.

We should take the fact that Bush is so strongly opposed to it as a sign of its significance. It is a good point at which a movement for withdrawal can take its first steps.

Joel Wendland

Ypsilanti, Michigan

Mar 20 2007 - 5:00pm

Web Letter

The legacy of George W. Bush will be a long, painful struggle. His administration has created hate among American citizens and citizens of the world.

Who speaks for the people? Who is the voice of freedom? Freedom may have become silent, a casualty in a failed experiment.

Political isolation creates an environment capable of destroying the people born or creative ideas born of the people. Oppression, anti-democratic practices, and illegal activities spread when ideas are not discussed openly, freely, and frequently. A desperate nation needs those that can think, communicate, and write clearly.

Do schools, communities, counties, states, and the nation have funding for the kind of infrastructure needed to support its citizens? No. The money is being dropped on children in deserts of distant countries. How can the U.S., so deeply in dept, rebuild schools in Iraq and rebuild run-down schools at home? The U.S. can't. Something must end; something must give, and something must start.

The dollar amount spent on the invasion of Iraq could have bought a house for every single struggling poor citizen of this country, not homeless shelters but HOUSES.

The dollar amount spent on politician's private "fact finding missions" and "trade networking" could have saved hundreds of lives of people who might have had a chance, if they only had medical insurance. This nation cannot see politics as a humanitarian field and civic duty; thus, politicians are paid too well.

The primary focus should be in taking care of this nation's people. This nation's EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, and HOUSING should be the first priority.

Students in the U.S. are not even able to name the presidents and incidences surrounding their administrations. Students in many European and Asian countries are able to name ALL the U.S. presidents.

In many nations, children are able to speak fluently in more than 2 languages while American children are unable to even master their very own language. Doesn't any politician find this disconcerting? Obviously not, because tax dollars continue to only trickle into schools and teachers struggle with wages much less than a federal politician's.

George W. Bush will never defeat any enemy abroad, but his neglect has damaged many American lives.

Jerie Leep

Tenkiller, Oklahoma

Mar 20 2007 - 12:27am

Web Letter

If bloodshed is the right thing to be tired of, then why support a bigger, bloodier war thru premature withdrawal of Americans.

I don't want to see the whole area blow up!

John D. Froelich

Upper Darby, Pennsylvania

Mar 17 2007 - 10:48am

Web Letter

Congressional Democrats have the power to end the war, but too many are suffering the effects of a collective form of Battered Spouse Syndrome; they're too timid to exercise their newfound authority, convinced by their GOP abusers that true independence and exertion of authority is somehow worse than backing down and accepting more abuse.

Worse is that conservative Democrats who support the war's continuation insist on joining with Republicans in opposing withdrawal from Iraq, as well as promoting war with Iran by forcing the removal of language requiring Congressional approval before launching any such military action.

Now more than ever, Democrats must have the fire lit under them. Voters are usually way ahead of their elected representatives on social and political matters, and when they elected the party to power in Congress they did so with not only the expectation but the demand that the Iraq war be brought to an end -- now. Not a year from now, or two years from now, after more people have died. But NOW.

But Democrats seeking to end the war and hold the Bush regime to account through impeachment will not succeed in such efforts unless both the timid and the conservative members of the party are forced by threat of recall elections to do their jobs. Voters in key districts should target Democratic Committee chairs who are in positions to cut off funding for the war and initiate impeachment proceedings. Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, must be included in this equation. David Obey and John Conyers, heads of the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees respectively, are among these key leaders. Gather signatures and find candidates with which to force these members to do as they are told, using the threat of recall. Remain polite, but firm in stating what is on the agenda and what will happen if the agenda is not carried out. Democrats willing to listen may back down against voters if they realize that their anti-war, pro-impeachment constituents are deadly serious about these issues. And stubborn Democrats can find themselves hampered by the ordeal of having to survive recall campaigns, thus forcing them to choose between sticking by their erroneous paths or recognizing that they are, in the end, servants whose jobs are to do as their constituents tell them.

Excuses against ending the war, as well as excuses against impeachment, may be met by pointing out that as long as the current stalemate exists Democrats have no hope of passing their legislative agenda. The Senate GOPers will filibuster anything Democrats try to pass, with the help of turncoats like Joe LIEberman. And even if they manage to get legislation passed intact, having survived attempts to gut it, Bush will issue vetos knowing Democrats haven't the votes to overturn them. So ending the war and impeaching Bush and Cheney are the only things Democrats can hope to accomplish. They may do this by using the threat of a budget stalemate in which Bush is in a position to blink first: while Democrats cannot pass a budget without his signature, they can go on record stating that if Bush does not accept their terms he can forget about getting any budget at all. He will have to back down, or take blame for causing a government shutdown.

But this requires some strong-arming.

Michael Kwiatkowski

Cleveland, Ohio

Mar 16 2007 - 10:27am