Letters to the Editor
dendrio
Published Letters: 200 Editor's Choice: 27
-
A Thought
[Read the article: Finding my religion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As I look at human history, I see religion being used to justify all manner of brutality and criminality, from the Celts' (and most ancient Pagans) practice of human sacrifice, to the blood-soaked Bible, the Christian crusades, Islamic jihad, witch-burnings and inquisitions, to the 5th Dalai Lama's genocide against Tibetan tribes that refused to be "united" under Gushri Khan's rule, to Zen Buddhist masters who justified Japanese imperialism because "there is no life and no death" and because those Christian converts in China might have the good karma to come back as proper Buddhists, to American colonists and settlers exterminating the "Red Devils" because they were the children of Satan, to the sundry Biblical justifications of American slavery, to Al Qaeda's hatred of all things not Sunni, to the Madhi Army's hatred of all things not Shia, to the Muslim genociders in Darfur exterminating all the (black) Christian men and impregnating the (black) Christian women so that they can have properly "Arab" babies, to the Holocaust, to the Buddhist government of Sri Lanka and its campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Hindu Tamils, to the Hindu Tamils who are more willing to wage war than live among Buddhists, to radical Hindus blowing up Mosques in India, to radical Muslims blowing up trains in India, to Serbs killing Croats killing Bosnians killing Albanians because some are Catholic, some are Orthodox, and some are Muslim, to the Turkish campaigns against the heathen people of Central and Eastern Europe, to Vlad the Impalers campaigns against the infidel Turks ... and on and on and on and on and on ...
Maybe the problem isn't religion. Religion is just the ideological enabler. The problem is us, Homo Sapiens. We seem to be an especially rapacious species, or rather, our intelligence and imagination allows to be more rapacious than any other species. So instead of focusing our ire on well-meaning individuals who have done us no harm (like Patricia Dunn), we should focus our rage on the murderers, genociders, and thugs, regardless of which religion they use to rationalize the evil they do.
-
Bush Has to Hammer On the Al-Qaida Faction
[Read the article: Dear Mr. President: Al-Qaida isn't the problem in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because if he called out the Madhi Army and the Badr Brigade on a regular basis, Americans would begin to wonder why we support a Prime Minister who relies on the militias and their leaders to stay in power.
-
I Was For the War Before I Was Against It
[Read the article: Insurgents cutting off Baghdad's power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To Elephantman:
I was in favor of the idea of toppling Saddam since the 90's when U.S. policy official changed from containment to regime change. I would have even supported an invasion of Iraq if there had been some planning for the post-invasion chaos that would inevitably erupts. However, I doubted the President Bush and his administration when they assured us repeatedly that they had enough troops to secure the borders and secure a peace, that they had a plan for civil administration, that there would be no guerilla resistance, that there would be no sectarian strife, that the critics were un-American, that the experts were all wrong, and that Iraq would become a beacon of propserity democracy, an antidote to violent Jihadist ideology. I said I had my doubts, and my doubts proved true, and they were proven true NOT because I didn't support the President, but because he and his Administration bungled (a gross understatement) the job. He got everything he wanted from Congress for the Iraq invasion - the authorization , the money, and the men, but he lacked the intelligence to use those tools effectively.
So you see, I can't get behind the President. I get get behind him because of his track record and I can't get behind him because I don't know what I'm supposed to be getting behind. He was yet to tell us what his plan is ... and it looks like we'll have to wait till the State of the Union speech to even get a hint of what he intends to do.
Now, Elephantman, you point out that our two options are diplomacy - requires both parties to act in good faith, and like you I doubt Sadr et. al. will bargain in good faith, or force. My question to you is, how much force and in what form? More American troops? How many? We'd need a lot of soldiers to patrol the streets, take on insurgent strongholds, disarm and disband the militias, secure and rebuild the infrastructure. From where will these troops come? A military draft? Will the American people accept that? Will Malaki, with his support from Sadr, accept a reinvasion of Iraq? Will the Iraqis accept a second wave of American force, or will they join the now well-established terrorist groups? Perhaps the troops could come from an international force, but which counties should send troops? Which countries would? And again, will Iraq's government and people accept this? For how long will the re-occupation last? Will there be a Marshall plan for Iraq? Will there be martial law as in the occupations of Germany and Japan after W.W.II? For how long? South Korea was a military dictatorship for decades after the cease-fire with the north, and the U.S. still has troops there. Are we willing to make that kind of commitment of money and men? Are we able to?
Frankly, these are questions that the President should have considered and answered before launching the invasion in 2003. I hope they are being considered now.
If you wish to continue this conversation privately, you can email me at sleepycoyote@yahoo.com
PS - I apologize for any typos. My cursor isn't doesn't correspond to its actual position.