Letters to the Editor
Baloo.
Published Letters: 221 Editor's Choice: 8
-
How WWIII might start
[Read the article: What will they really do about Iraq?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article makes no mention of Iran. Without Iran as an American ally (yes, ally) in the effort to bring stability to Iraq, we will not succeed. The Iranians will ensure that our efforts are doomed to failure unless we give them a seat at the table. Given that Clinton and McCain both refuse to talk to Iran and would likely only escalate tensions in the region, they're respective strategies for Iraq are doomed to failure.
Imagine an analogous situation. China has invaded and occupied Mexico. The US, fearful of Chinese hegemony, is doing everything it can to undermine Chinese efforts and to bog China down into an endless war that will collapse their economy and waste all their resources. What other option would China have in such a situation but to speak to the US and ask for their help?
Complete withdrawal you say. There are several things wrong with this option. Foremost is the fact that Iran has the second largest oil reserves in the world and with a controlling hand in Iraq they would be the world's foremost controller of the world's oil reserves. This would grant them unchecked power to do as they wish with the Western economies. One day gas prices are at $4 a gallon, the next day they're at $12. The US stock market would crash. Millions of Americans would lose their jobs and Iran would strike deals with China and Russia to indirectly weaken and keep US power in check.
We have no other option but to make nice with Iran. Better to do it now while we still have a powerful hand to play than later when Iran goes nuclear and the Iraq war has already decimated the US economy.
I say again: The Clinton/McCain plan would set the US on a disastrous path. Clinton has already voted to brand the Revolutionary Guard in Iran a terrorist organization. She also said in last night's speech that she would create an umbrella organization of Arab states to check Iran's power akin to NATO. This would only position the powers in that region to ally themselves on the one hand with the US (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states) and on the other hand with China and Russia (Iran, Syria, Palestine, Iraq). In other words, this strategy would pave the way to World War III.
This is not a joke and not hyperbole. We need a president who will usher the US into a global mindset as a global player. The day's of US hegemony and unchecked power have come to an end. Political consciousness is stirring in even the poorest of nations. They all want what's due to them. Clinton's only concern is winning this election, damned US interests or what's best for the region. McCain's antiquated notions of victory with honor and so forth will only bog us down further and weaken our hand.
I say again: Obama is the only reasonable choice on this issue.
-
AnaHadWolves and other Clinton supporters for McCain
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton fizzle in Philly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Read this and then tell us you'll vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination. I dare you!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/07/report-mccains-profane-ti_n_95429.html
McCain calls his wife the "c" word, in public!
As I've said before, get over yourselves!
-
Not so fast...
[Read the article: Media hypocrites love personality politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article is really an indictment of the American public as much as it is of the American media, not the Republican party. The Republicans, like the Democrats, want to win. It's true Rove went further than other operatives in manufacturing stories and employing underhanded techniques but he is, more or less, of the same mold as any political operative.
The media, furthermore, are simply giving the people what they want. It is the same phenomenon that afflicted the Roman Empire. The older the Empire got the more depraved and superficial it became. It is the way of all cultures. Not until a revolutionary figure arrives, someone who establishes a new standard are values recreated, reaffirmed and innocence once again reclaimed. In politics some figures come to mind along this line of thinking: Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, and soon perhaps Obama. Not everyone will agree with the values that these men espouse but their influence is undeniably regenerative.
To indict the Republican party as myth-makers without saying a word about Democratic myths is to partake in the very phenomenon one presumes to critique. The Democrats too have their myths. It is the 'man of the people,' 'by the sweat of his brow,' 'honest-broker,' ideal (think Edwards or Jimmy Carter). The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is not that one party is more virtuous than the other but that they have different ideals, different values. These values seek out and nominate different types of people as party leaders.
Just as the Republicans think of Democrats as wimps, Democrats think of Republicans as money and power hungry 'thugs' (a term I gleaned from this thread). The only reason the latter sentiment rings so true now is because we unfortunately have an administration in power that epitomizes the worst in the Republican party.
Gerald Ford was an incredibly decent human being and a Republican. I doubt that this theory would have gained any traction during his administration.
-
Saintzak
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton fizzle in Philly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...and he still can't get a cab in most cities across America.
-
And another thing...
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton fizzle in Philly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought Hillary came off incredibly smug in the first half of the debate.