Letters to the Editor
mattwa33186
Published Letters: 395 Editor's Choice: 41
-
It's not a question of faith
[Read the article: The al-Marri decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do believe in the Constitution. But I know it is powerless when our leaders are allowed to ignore it.
Ideas are worthless if all anybody ever does is think about them, which is what you seem content to do. Just wait it out, and the people who took our rights will eventually give them back. You wouldn't be OK with someone taking your car just because they would probably bring it back, eventually, when they didn't need it anymore, but you are OK with someone taking your right to free speech, your right to be secure in your person, your right to due process, etc...
Do you believe that the Constitution is imbued with some innate power to make evil men come to the light? It isn't - its power only exists as long as people are willing to fight for it. That's what we need to do, and we need to do it now because the first rights that are being taken away are the ones that give us the power to oppose our government.
We can't stop being America because it's too dangerous and then return to being America when it's safe.
Your mantra seems to be that of GW - "stay the course". Mine is that of Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
To each his own, I suppoose.
-
Some obvious points
[Read the article: Bush's blank check]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We do have some credible potential enemies left - China, North Korea, and the Prez is working his ass off to make an enemy of the EU. So it's not like we're building missile silos in the Garden of Eden, we do have scenarios that we have to be ready for.
Why do we spend so much more than other countries? Because we fight all of our wars outside our borders. Other countries plan for the defense of their land and possibly the acquisition of neighboring territories. We have taken responsibility for the entire land mass of planet Earth. Also, I don't think you are taking into account what they are spending on their space programs, which are largely militarized.
Why has the budget increased so much and so rapidly? Because in the last 7 years we have moved from a military that was almost a pure reconosance force (get in, achieve the objective, go home), as it was for 200 years, to one that is tasked with taking and holding land indefinitely. A fundamental shift in philosophy, coming on the heels of and completely obviating the doctrine that allowed us to win the first war with Iraq so easily and relatively cheaply. Imperialism has its price.
From Bush's point of view (more likely Cheney's) we need to spend a trillion dollars to defeat ragtag terrorists because to do that we have to conquer 25% of the world.
I am in no way trying to justify this. What this administration has done to our military is a disgrace. The decisions made have shown a complete lack of regard for the men and women in our armed forces, and a complete lack of respect for what they do. As has been pointed out, none of this money is being spent to ensure that when we send people into harm's way we have done everything we can to ensure that they will return safely, and because of that I firmly believe that our President is completely unfit to serve as Commander in Chief of our military (not that the concept of serving has ever entered his pea brain).
-
Not every human
[Read the article: Scott Bateman Presents: Why God is mad at Rosie]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just lesbians.
Because from what I just saw, thinking about lesbian sex prevents prominent Christian ministers from focusing on important things like how to take our money and putting out an amber alert for God. Or speaking.
-
A bad assumption
[Read the article: Bush's blank check]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When you say there is no strategic benefit to further terrorist attacks, you are assuming traditional military and political strategies are in play, which they aren't.
There would be enormous strategic benefit in continued terrorist attacks within our borders because the ultimate objective is to get us to pressure our government into leaving the Middle East. Sustained attacks could achieve that if the government proves as ineffective at stopping those attacks as they have at everything else lately.
I agree that we are doing it wrong, which is worse than not doing it at all, but the underlying reasons are valid as long as you start with the premise that we need to have a presence in the Middle East.
-
So let me get this straight
[Read the article: Sen. Reid's crime]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rumsfeld cuts the troop deployment from 300,000 to 100,000 on his own initiative. Much like the surge that was completed successfully before it was begun, he could barely contain his glee over the fact that we had kicked the Iraqi's asses so badly before we had even completed the deployment that we wouldn't need to send all those troops. He determined this. He decided to cut the deployment. He took all the credit. The military still said they needed all those men, but what did they know?
And now it's the General's fault?
Of course the military should be subject to criticism, just like anyone who serves the nation. But they shouldn't be criticized for the decisions they are forced to live with when they are made by first class idiot civilians, any more than they should be criticized for carrying out legal orders.
-
What they need to do
[Read the article: The connection between 9/11 and bad Chinese food]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, it's true that chinese cooking isn't that hard - I had to learn myself after moving to Florida from New York. A lot more work, of course, but worth the effort.
But where the restauranteurs are blowing it is by telling the government they want to bring in chefs. What they need to do is say they are bringing in computer programmers to work for their software company - there is no restriction on how many of those can come over, sadly.