Letters to the Editor
mattwa33186
Published Letters: 394 Editor's Choice: 41
-
Grant is to blame for everything
[Read the article: When Democrats collapse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course it's ludicrous to believe that Grant was constantly drunk. But I almost wish he was...
Slavery was doomed before the war started (remember all the hubbub a few years back when the "racist" economist who won the Nobel for proving slavery would have run its course in America within 15 years showed up in Stockholm with his black wife/research assistant?), and those who insist on making the war about owning slaves are just plain ignorant. So taking that heinous practice off the table, if Grant wasn't an effective general, he would have been replaced by Sherman.
This would have done 2 things - Sherman wouldn't have gotten to do what he did, and his hatred and fear of all things political would have reduced northern support for the war in the long run.
The South (behind Lee's brilliance and Forrest's terrorism) could have achieved enough of a military stalemate and erosion of public suport to drive Lincoln to the negotiating table, and a re-unified America would have had a much weaker federal government instead of the much stronger one that we wound up with.
The civil rights movement would have started 40 years earlier, since there would have been no Reconstruction for Southerners to hold a grudge about for the next century or so, and thus no anger to take out on blacks.
A large chunk of Mexico probably would have been annexed sometime early in the 20th century, since Texas would have been one of the more powerful blocs in the re-unified country.
The States would have laughed at the notion of a federal income tax.
The Great Society, and the ensuing entitlement culture, would never have happened.
Abortion would still be a matter for the States to decide.
Millions of Americans who have jobs with the federal government would now have honest work where they actually do something useful.
And guys like Bush, if they ever managed to get elected, would have to worry about writing their memiors from Leavenworth.
If someone could have slipped Grant an extra bottle here and there, or maybe introduced him to opium, the world might be a better place.
-
axon
[Read the article: Memorial Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My God. The war was lost the day Rumsfeld cut the troop deployment - in other words, it was lost before it was begun. The question isn't whether we have the political will to win, it's who is going to pay for the mistakes the cabal has made.
Should it be the Iraqi's, who's country we have destroyed?
Should it be soldiers who will have to fight and die indefinitely to try to keep this from turning even worse, while waiting for real leaders to emerge in a country where those with leadership qualities were summarily executed as potential opponents for 2 generations?
Or should it be us, who will have to live in a world with a Muslim superpower that hates us and controls 2/3 of the world's oil if we allow Iraq to fall?
Next stop Tehran? Do you seriously think that after all the political, economic, and military capital we have wasted trying to defeat guerillas and a strong border force we have any chance at all of defeating a military with unlimited funds and an incredibly powerful and focused leader that has been doing nothing except prepare for fighting us since the day we entered Baghdad?
All soldiers are equal, because they all fight for something other, and hopefully bigger, than themselves. All soldiers deserve to have their lives treated as something of value by those who send them into harm's way, not wasted on fool's errands and politically expedient changes in plan.
The author definitely has the sentiment right. I can't agree with the call to action at the end but at least he, as opposed to you, understands what has been lost here.
-
And what purpose would that be, exactly?
[Read the article: Memorial Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What this country needs to address headon is the purpose behind their sacrific, the goal they are trying to achieve. What is it that we hope their sacrifices will accomplish and how can we aide their efforts to be successful? Certainly our leaders had mixed purposes behind the undertaking, and certainly we underestimated the enemy. Certainly those who have managed the war have erred mightily. Certainly the task is difficult and the projections now appear bleak. But, the fact that some thought they saw opportunity for improper gain, or the fact that some were ignorant about effective strategy, doesn't mean that there was no good purpose or reason for the undertakng itself, or that no good has been accomplished by the brave efforts of our soldiers.
Did we invade Iraq to topple an evil regime? Then why aren't we in North Korea, which would have the added benefit of being a country that is actually a threat to us?
Did we invade to punish someone for supporting terrorism? Then why aren't we in Saudi Arabia, where most of the money comes from?
Or did we invade for oil? But then, why aren't we in Iran, or Venezuela?
The reason this war is a lost cause, the reason we can't win, is because the administration never provided a realistic definition of victory, never listened to realistic assessments of what the results of an invasion would be, never listened to the professionals who gave them realist assessments of what achieveing their vague and spurious goals would take.
Our troops are not being dishonored by the citizens, they have been dishonored by the government.
-
Who really has forgery issues?
[Read the article: Right-wing blogger geniuses expose another journalistic fraud!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even if this was a forgery, I think starting an invasion of a sovereign nation based partly on forged records of uranium sales puts the Republicans a little ahead of the Democrats here, doesn't it? I mean, they were told they were likely forgeries when they got them, a 30 second Google search would have shown them that the signatories weren't even in office at the time the document was signed, and they still got taken in?
People who live in glass White Houses shouldn't throw stones.