Letters to the Editor
stackey-dackey
Published Letters: 324 Editor's Choice: 8
-
I really love the article
[Read the article: The real consequences when America is at war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It makes a great case as to why we shouldn't go to War. I think that in any democratic society, the voices of pacifists shouldn't be silenced because of the macho posturing of arm chair warriors. Unfortunately, that has increasingly become the case in this country; to be against the war is to be against America, to be a coward, to not support the troops.
I am not a pacifist, nor am I anti-war, but we should always keep in mind that the minute you hit the ground, in any country, all bets are off. That innocent people are going to die, women, children, and men whose only sin is living in a country that had an despot in charge who pissed off the United States.
I remember when the war first started, I got in an argument with a coworker. I said to him, just try, for a moment, to put your self in an Iraqis position; lets say, accdidentally of course, the Americans drop a bomb on your wedding party, killing 60% of your family. Are you going to really care that our intentions were supposedly good? Are you going to care that it was an accident? Are you going to comfort yourself with the fact that well, at least now you have democracy! No, No, and NO!
The soldiers over there are just doing their jobs, but ultimately, if they survive, they get to come home. However, the Iraqis will have to walk up and down bombarded streets, look at family photo albums with pictures of dead relatives.
I truly beleive that if most Americans had to deal, on daily basis, with that sort of brutality they wouldn't be so gung ho, ra-ra-rah about it. It is dishonorable to the memories of soldiers killed over there, to the people living in that hell, to gloss over their psychic and physical wounds with the glib saying, War is Hell. Or at least, that expression has become glib. I'm sure the person who first said it didn't mean it to be glib, but to be accurate.
I wish they showed picture after picture of carnage over there, to keep fresh in everyones minds that war truly is hell, and we shouldn't be so quick to use it to solve every problem, like the neocons would prefer. Or, at least if we do use it, we make damn we win quickly and as painlessly as possible.
-
Elephantam
[Read the article: How Karl Rove played politics while people drowned]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really don't understand Republicans. I don't understand why it is wrong, in the face of a natural disaster, for the federal government to help out its citizens? I pay taxes every friggin year, and if God forbid a tornado rips through the part of Georgia I live in, I would hope that that the government that exists only by the good will of the people, that is funded by the people, would do its part to serve the people. You can argue about welfare, or medicare, or any other social program, but I'm sorry, I'm pretty a proponent of a federal government that can step in and help during Acts of God. You can't rely on the State government in those situations, 100%, because more often than not, they are in the eye of the storm themselves.
We can send billions of dollars to friggin Thailand and China and try to send shit to Myanmar and all of these third world countries, but somehow the so-called best country in history of the entire world according to most Republicans, can't even mobilize in a week to save people stranded on top of their friggin houses or in a overflowing Super Dome. You can blame the victims, you can blame Kathleen Blanco or Ray Nagin, but I'm sorry Republicans, the buck stops with your people.
Your people were running FEMA. They should have done everything in their power to help their citizens because that is what it means to be a CIVIL SERVANT. The problem with the current Republican administration is that they are under the mistaken impression that we are here to serve them.
-
Thank god for you OOMEX
[Read the article: "You Don't Mess With the Zohan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You've set the record straight. Thank GOD for you.
I would have liked this review better if instead of actually discussing a film, Stephanie had gone into a lengthy discusision of the Arab-Jewish conflict. Sure, she's a movie reviewer and not an expert in Palestinian or Jewish History, but I guess that doesn't matter. Complete ignorance about certain things doesn't stop people from posting, with authority, on these boards, so why should someone paid to write movie reviews be any different! I know, I know, she should have done some research! Deadlines be damned!
I, for one, had no idea that 2,000 year canard was inaccurate (since I'd never heard it before) , but luckily Stephanie and I have folks like you to inform and educate on us. Again, thanks so much.
-
Michelle Obama
[Read the article: Why is Walters talking about Hillary Clinton's backside?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Small on top big on the bottom? How is that the worst body type? I can't really see how Michelle is like that even so. Granted she has a booty (like most African-American women) but she's a friggin giantess. Her best feature is her body in my opinion; those long long legs.
I do have to say, after looking through some pictures on the Obama website, that Michelle is nowhere near as pretty as her husband. She's attractive, and forceful and smart, but her husband photographs really,really, well and when he smiles he's GORGEOUS. Whereas when I look at Michelle I see the girl next door. Literally; she looks the girl who lived next door to me. Which I suppose is also hot in it's own way.
Wow, I really went