Letters to the Editor
macgupta
Published Letters: 386
-
@L.W.M. - regime change
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt on the noble glories of occupation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]L.W.M. -
1. Collective punishment via air strikes was British policy in the late colonial era in areas that are now Pakistan's NWFP and tribal zones. US air strikes on civilian areas in Sadr City smack of that policy.
2. Yes, governments should be careful of civilians any where, but that is too much to hope for. Governments have to be exceptionally careful for civilians in areas that that government governs (remember consent of the governed, and all that?). US as the occupying power in Iraq has to treat Iraqi civilians with the same care as it would treat Americans, otherwise it should not be there.
3. The French didn't stay or try to teach (euphemism for force) Americans to change their economy or adopt some ideology or write the American Constitution or use Monsanto seed. If the US can play the French role in the American Revolution, well and good; but the US has proven to be singularly unable to do that.
-
@L.W.M. - regime change
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt on the noble glories of occupation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me spell it out carefully, for you, L.W.M.:
1. The US has no legitimate reason to be in Iraq.
2. Well, the US is there. The US then ought to treat civilians under its care with the same rights and care granted to Americans. Absent that it is a colonial occupying power and any sane liberty-loving person would applaud all resistance to the US occupation.
It does not change matters any that the US is acting on behalf of a supposedly legitimate government of Iraq. It was a US-installed government.
3. Having violated its own anti-colonial origins and charter, the US government needs to be abolished (or rather, radically amended) by its people.
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt on the noble glories of occupation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I notice that neither you nor Glenn propose a viable alternative to quelling civil war, state sponsored genocide, or rule by mass murder. Just moral fastidiousness about practical efforts to stop participants from killing themselves and others. Like it or not that translates into benign neglect, or rather, permission for the regimes mentioned above to continue their murderous ways. How moral is that?
Specific to Iraq - the answer is a withdrawal of all American forces; no bases, no military advisers, nothing.
Quote:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this hearing on the current state of affairs in Iraq with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Reviewing the presentations by our panel, I have noted with some concern that they seem more focused on justifying a future attack on Iran than reporting on progress in Iraq. Much of the assertions about Iran in Iraq seem illogical, others seem intended to inflame the situation with little justification.
Particularly, I am concerned about claims that a new enemy in Iraq has emerged with ties to Iran. First we were told that the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party. Then we were told the enemy was the "dead-enders" from Saddam’s former government. Then the prime enemy became "al-Qaeda in Iraq," a prime focus of the presentation by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus last September. Now we are told that the new enemies are mysterious "Special Groups" that are said to have spun off from al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
If this phenomenon of constantly emerging enemies bent on destabilizing Iraq is accurate and our presence in Iraq keeps generating new enemies, perhaps the problem is the occupation itself. If this is the case, doesn’t it make sense that our departure from Iraq may actually have a stabilizing effect?
-Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul455.html
-
Truth
[Read the article: Things that don't exist in Harry Reid's world]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even if Reid is sucking up to Liebermann in order to keep the Democrats in control of the Senate, GG is doing the right thing in pointing out the lies and contortions involved in doing that.
If GG "understood" why Reid is doing what he is doing and so did not write this article, then GG would be becoming one of the conventional mainstream media pundits.
-
@bigguns
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]India and China love our two wars. They spend billions on infrastructure and we spend trillions on imperialism.
Dunno about China. As an India-watcher, I can assure you that India does not love the two US wars, and the threatened third one with Iran.
1. India needs a quick and successful conclusion to the US/NATO war in Afghanistan with a non-Islamist government in charge; no Taliban, no refuge or training camps for terrorists/militants that constantly strike India, and less room for Islamist extremism in Pakistan.
2. Remittances from Indians working in the Middle East still rival earnings from software, as well as giving gainful employment to millions of Indians. India imports 75% of its petroleum needs and depends on the Middle East. That region is also a major target for India's exports. India needs a stable and peaceful Middle East. A normal Iraq would be helpful, too.
3. India's energy needs also make its relationship with Iran very critical to it, both for petroleum and for natural gas. The US relationship is also strategic and India would prefer not to have to choose sides.
4. After Russia, India's largest defence partner is Israel (in terms of military equipment imports to India).
I think India would very much want the US to abandon its neocon ways and instead proceed by diplomacy.
-
@orbitboy
[Read the article: Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Iran's efforts to obtain nukes pre-date Bush, by decades.
Yes, it dates to the time of the US ally, the Shah of Iran. At that time Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons was not a problem.
After the revolution, Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons started after Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Iranians; Iran took it to the United Nations, and the western powers and US in particular sat on their hands. With that is was a rational conclusion Iran, indeed for any state, that it needs WMD if the Western powers are antagonistic to it.