Letters to the Editor
susan sunflower
Published Letters: 1373 Editor's Choice: 29
-
America squandered whatever good faith assumption that it abides by either the letter or the spirit of international law,
[Read the article: When is an accidental civilian death not an accident?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]specifically the Geneva Conventions early on in Afghanistan ...
I understand why you feel as you do, but that ship has sailed and is no longer in sight ... long before Abu Ghraib, "we" redefined large number of people as falling into categories exempt from the Geneva Conventions and therefore eligible for indefinite secret detentions, torture and worse ... Those arguments have never received some "internationl law" seal of approval as far as I know. (We also made quite a hash of protections guaranteed to American citizens and anyone else on the entire planet.)
Our willingness to be "accountable" for civilian casualties in Afghanistan -- from the very first days of our arrival there --has been foot-dragging and disturbing. It's as if there's a set "protocol" of deny, deny, deny for 14 days while officers distribute blood money, and then to vaguely admit culpability and "move on." It is easy for "us" to forget or conflate these incidents ... for the Afghans, not.so.much
-
"Not that a continuing parliamentary session would make much of a difference, anyway"
[Read the article: In Baghdad, time for a break]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cut the crap and stop with this blame the Iraq strawman -- please!
Yes, and our own congress should kept in session until gang violence in our major urban areas has been "solved" ... or until both houses can agree on anything of substance.
What goes on in the Iraqi parliament and street violence are miles apart... don't even get me started about how illegitimate and unrepresentative that parliament is or how the legislation in question has been under discussion for months and months with no progress because ... the parliament really resents having US - the united state - ramming it down their throats, not to mention that to give-in to our demands weakened their credibility ...
but, you already knew all that, didn't you?
-
I just realized that the second plank in the "The whole push for the congress to "do something"" was all about empowering the sunnis ....
[Read the article: In Baghdad, time for a break]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]which apparently Petraeus is doing single-handedly ... by arming them, against Maliki's wishes, apparently having lost patience with "democracy."
I cringe when I hear Americans talk about Iraqi politicians as if they were children or somehow mentally deficient ... the Iraqi parliament -- as has been noted -- has been telling Washington for more than 3 months they were taking August off ... what's the big surprise, shock, horrow, awe ...
These politicians are living in terrible conditions, terrible security ... there's not much power to actually do much ... gee y'think they're waiting us out? as they try to stay alive day by day? WRT the oil bill and the "reconciliation" plan, most of them are in a no-win situation
Yes, let's threaten them with leaving .... buh-bye ... yeah, we'll take our ball and go home ... that'll teach them.
Sheesh, talk about ingratitude.
-
I confess to having grown disllusioned with "kitchen table psychology" as a pre-teen .... but this really isn't much of a step above that, imho ...
[Read the article: War, chaos and Bush's faith]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]maybe next week we can have the astrological analysis
and then I want full assessment of the policy impolications inherent in that George/Laura rift being covered by the tabloids -- why the silence??? complicity or conspiracy.
Please save all this "theological" speculation for the mind and tea leave readers.... and the historians, eventually, all in good time.
My suspicion is that Bush's "spirituality" is just about as shallow and self-serving as the rest of his "core values" -- and that, like many other "christians" I've known he's just playing to his perceived audience... his "base" with coaching from Unca Karl.
-
anyone who thinks the "war on terror" is going to be "won" with armies and airforces , much less with invading other nations, has lost me already-- we need to stop this madness
[Read the article: Obama: Bush is confused, but the enemy is real]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most of the acts of terror "we" in the west have suffered have been IN RESPONSE to our much resented unwanted presence (actual military presence and "undue influence") in other countries' territory.
I am not advocating timidity or isolationism. I agree with an early poster on this thread, what about old-fashioned outreach, education, development, and cooperation.
Some one-size-fits-all you're either with us or against us approach is not only a no-win proposition (as we will, yes, "create enemies faster than we can kill them") is a re-tread of our 900-ton canary cold war practices encouraging hostile intervention as a first rather than last step.
Let's audit that "Department of Homeland Security" and get our frontline agencies domestically and abroad in good and legal working order. Terrorism and terrorists should be treated like the crimes/criminals they are. This war on "bad thoughts" will kill us.
-
just wanted to add that I am genuinely delighted that Obama has jumped into "the fray" ...
[Read the article: Obama: Bush is confused, but the enemy is real]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]even if he had doubtless given quite a number of his supporters "pause."
(almost)everybody wants to bring out troops home (sooner or later) and imho it takes a lot of rubber chicken and a lot of koolaid under the bridge to even get to the point of running for national office (usually even country and state offices)...
I've been hoping for "scales falling from eyes" moments sooner rather than later ... let the education of the American public begin!
Perhaps we can dispense with "cleavage" and "haircuts" and "spats" in favor of some substance.
-
"By playing up the candidate's vow to go after al-Qaida in Pakistan -- even if Pervez Musharraf won't -- the media present us Obama the tough, not Obama the inexperienced. "
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton, Round 2?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]not so fast and not necessarily ...
Obama has the freedom to "talk tough" because, having no actual power, not actually being president, his words are unlikely to throw (wobbly) Musharrif out of power.
As I understand it, if we actually make an insursion into Paksitani "sovereign territory" Musharrif stands to lose the support of the MILITARY ... which as a MILITARY DICTATOR ... is likely "all she wrote."
As far as I can tell, Pakistani politics, like most third world politics -- and certainly most third world military dictatorships -- is cognizant of, if not obediant to, the will of the great unwashed masses and in Pakistan from most I've read, those great unwashed masses consider the Taliban and Bin Laden as god-fearing freedom fighters against infidel imperialists ... or something like that.
I think it's likely that Hillary is going to nail Obama's ass to the wall on this one.
-
yes, one of the questions to be asked of every candidate is how far they will go in supporting Musharriff when the inevitable coup takes place ...
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton, Round 2?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]do they intend to invade Pakistan to keep a military dictator in power and/or to "secure" their nukes?