Letters to the Editor
MacK..
Published Letters: 477 Editor's Choice: 49
-
What Adults concerned about the US position in the world should have said
[Read the article: What you missed while watching "Deal or No Deal"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The US is in a desperate foreign policy situation right now – practically a pariah in many parts of the world.
Let’s look at some of the answers and ask what someone who wants to restore the US position in the world should have said:
"Was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?"
We are in a quagmire from which there is no clear exit. We are losing troops every day. The only thing staving off wholesale civil war is our presence. The region is swamped with refugees. Our military's honor has been besmirched by its acts in places from Abu Ghraib to . . .The justifications we used to invade, WMD turned out to be based on false premises. We were not greeted with flowers as liberators. The distraction of Iraq means that 5 years on Bin Laden is still at large. In retrospect can anyone really describe it as a “good idea.”
To "authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons for a preemptive strike against Iran to destroy nuclear centrifuges.”
The US’ has lost friends through a perception that the current administration is reckless and irresponsible and that ignores international norms of behavior. No-First-Use of nuclear weapons is an accepted rule since 1945; we have been recognised as adhering to that rule – as have the Russians and the Chinese and every other major nuclear power. I would hope the Israelis would state that they too keep to that rule. The concern with a nuclear Iran is a belief that it might not adhere to this principle – how can we effectively oppose Iran seeking nuclear weapons while simultaneously offering the justification that the US has abandoned no-first-use. The idea is absurd.
“Blitzer asks if any of the Republicans onstage disagree with the claim that English should be the official language in the United States.”
You know, the US needs more friends in the world – and English may be the most widely spoken language in the world, but not even a majority of the worlds population speak it. Should we adopt a policy that in our law disparages other cultures, says for example that French is not as good as English. If the US is to restore the foreign policy damage done over the last 6-years a good start would be to learn to speak to other countries, and listen to them in their language. I do not think we should just follow a policy of speaking to "furriners" loudly and slowly in English.
Should gays be allowed in the military?
Can they shoot, can they fight, can they bleed, can they die?
“How he would employ President George W. Bush if he won the White House.”
As a live model to demonstrate waterboarding techniques on . . .
-
Timbuktom -- no first use?
[Read the article: What you missed while watching "Deal or No Deal"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think only China and India have publicly stated a "no-first-use" policy. However, the idea of no-first-use has been a broadly accepted principle in international "nuclear" relations and diplomacy since the 50s or there-abouts. It was for example on of the reasons why MacArthur was denied nukes in Korea.
The key impact of no-first-use has been that no-party has ever threatened to use nuclear weapons unless its territory was attacked first, and even then only in response to the use of WMD.
What these bozos did was essentially threaten a first-strike/first use against Iran even absent any use or thereat to use by Iran -- and that goes against all accepted principles, written and unwritten, of nuclear diplomacy.
It was a dumb thing to do that demonstrated that none of them should be in the White House. And you can be sure of one thing, it did not enhance the US' standing in the world or held it resist Iran's ambitions to be a nuclear power.
-
Shooter 242
[Read the article: The Republican Party is the party of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is funny. How many in this group have had anything, anything at all, positive to say about Bush, conservatives, or Republicans? None, I would venture. Hell, even liberal folks like Bucky get blasted for not following the party line sufficiently. There is no independence here, just different hues of leftist orthodoxy. Chavez would be proud of this group.
Actually, shooter242, most people use conservative with a small-c to mean actual-conservative. With a big-C or in quotes "Conservative" they are referring to the lying individuals who call themselves "Conservatives" while advancing a radical right-wing agenda that includes rolling back the New Deal (now some 75 years old), the 4th Amendment, Habeas Corpus, fiscal solvency, etc. etc. You and the Bushies dont get to call yourself a small-c conservative -- and by the way, now that Chavez is shutting down TV stations etc. don't you think he is showing just a little bit of a Bushy radical side?