Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
re: And we are supposed to be the good guys
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are we the 'good guys'?
"...Yet, after the historical record has been laid bare, some people just don’t get it. After the United States invaded Mexico under false pretences; after we helped to overthrow the existing monarchy in Hawaii; after we seized Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam from Spain during the Spanish-American War; after the United States intervened militarily in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Korea, Cuba, China, and Mexico before World War I; after we sent troops to Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Russia, Panama, Honduras, Yugoslavia, Guatemala, Turkey, and China between the world wars; after we engaged in a hundred additional military actions following World War II – after all this, some people still can’t see (or perhaps don’t want to see) the insidious nature of U.S. foreign policy. ..."
I think I 'get it'; we are not the 'good guys' simply by asserting that we are. It is by the fruit of the tree that you will know the nature of it. The fruit as seen from here looks to be very bitter, indeed.
-
re: You people are sheeple
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"... What makes you think we were ever the good guys? How little you all know about history. About imperialism, proxy wars, economic warefare, exporting garbage and importing the world's resources. Screw all of you simpletons who view Guantanamo as a "current administration," or "Neo-con," or "republican" issue. We used to throw prisoners out of helicopters in Vietnam. We used to hook up electric generators to prisoner's balls in Korea. Our soldiers raped the enemy and civilians during WWII. Wake up people. ..."
It is true that both wings of the warfare-welfare party have overseen horrors that most can not imagine, much less understand. It does no good to merely point out that the Democratic Party has also participated in vile evil worthy of a Lovecraft story, if you mean to excuse the present horror.
We can deal with only a few things at a time. For now, we fight the god damn Republican war-machine and its war-bots. Starting in 2008 (assuming the Dems do nothing real stupid) we will be yelling at the horrors brought to us by the new folks in DC. (perhaps then a few partisans will see that both parties are the problem just as Washington predicted)
-
re: Even Randolph Bourne...
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LWM:
...was a progressive and leftist. Do they bother to tell you that at the "Randolph Bourne Institute"
Of course not. It would detract from the magic that is the crap that Hekyll and Jekyll, the magpies of politics, stole from everyone else who ever had an original idea that Hekyll and Jekyll could never come up with on their own, unless you count "Taxation is Theft!" - but even that was stolen from "Property is Theft!"
I am having trouble understanding this one. I know LWM loves a dust-up that interferes with GG's comment area, but this is beyond my ability to decipher. It is from near the end of the GG post-before-last comment thread.
The Randolph Bourne Institute: http://randolphbourne.org/
... is the umbrella organization for antiwar.com and it says " ...all RBI projects attempt to provide a forum where the entire political spectrum – libertarian, left, right, centrist – can join together on the vital issue of opposing war. ...". Is this not enough for LWM to accept?
Is he trying to claim that antiwar.com is "evil" in some way? It is my home on the net, if I have one, --- does that alone make them horrors?
Bourne:
Government is obviously composed of common and unsanctified men, and is thus a legitimate object of criticism and even contempt. If your own party is in power, things may be assumed to be moving safely enough; but if the opposition is in, then clearly all safety and honor have fled the State. Yet you do not put it to yourself in quite that way. What you think is only that there are rascals to be turned out of a very practical machinery of offices and functions which you take for granted.
Randolf Bourne was a liberal in 1900, but that is what we call libertarians today. (or classic liberals, if you prefer)
Anyone have a clue what LWM is going on about?
-
-- Paul Rosenberg attacks antiwar.com
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... I went shopping a couple of hours ago, just after voting in the special election for Congress (CA-37). There, in front of the Trader Joes, was a bustling little table of anti-Bush organizing... by the LaRouchies. Possibly the only outfight in America more psychologically unfit to run the country than the gang that's actually in charge. ...
It is interesting that Paul R. uses the LaRouchies to make some obscure point that antiwar.com is not worthy of his big tent. Fine, if you are so partisan that the fellows over at antiwar.com are not good enough for you that is your business.
... Bourne was 14 in 1900, but was never remotely a libertarian. ...
If you read what I wrote, I said that he would be a liberal in the classic sense; which today is called libertarian because of the socialists that came to dominate the group we moderns call 'liberal'.
-
William on government ...
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]WT: "... Bucky1, if I may address you directly, when you say that on occasion, the government abuses its monopoly on legal force and violence, I would agree. When you say that it must do so, is compelled by its very nature to do so, I would definitely disagree. ...As I see it, getting rid of GWB might spare us the horrors of Guantánamo; getting rid of government most certainly would not."
---
I understand your confusion.
You say that you do not believe that governments will abuse the power it has. That is an extraordinary claim and I have heard people say that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Do you have some modern nation-state in mind that never abused some of its people? Take your time, I am going to leave shortly and read about things other than politics.
Ask anything you care to, and I will try to answer; but please thoughtfully consider my question.