Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@Lil Scooter's question
[Read the article: Mitt Romney: Perfect tough guy for right-wing war cheerleaders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Our backward student has raised a point that could probably use some illumination, if purely for the sake of instruction:
What is the difference between supporting the WoT Part 1: Afghanistan (the part that enjoyed broader support, for very good reasons), and not volunteering, and supporting Vietnam and not volunteering? I think this is worth taking a shot at, because I can't say it's instantly clear to me.
I don't hang around military-aged people much, but then I didn't know any military-aged people during Vietnam, either. So I can only speculate:
(1) Vietnam ran for nearly a decade and turned into a minor meat-grinder. Troop levels peaked at 537,377, vs the Iraq peak of 159,000. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/bg1954.cfm) Afghanistan had 10,000 soldiers in 2003. (http://usmilitary.about.com/b/2003/11/09/dod-announces-iraqafghanistan-deployment-schedule.htm)
(2) Vietnam involved conscription. Afghanistan does not; even Iraq does not. Tens of thousands of friends and neighbors are not dying.
(3) The war in Afghanistan came suddenly and was won very quickly. Like Iraq, it has 2 phases, invasion and occupation. For the sake of argument, let's say "all liberals supported going after Osama." That's the invasion part. It's debatable whether that phase continues.
(4) Vietnam was Vietnam. Other occupations were (and are) ongoing, but if you wanted to go you could go, because it was the main thing. Of course, you could support our "effort" there by going elsewhere and the same could hold now. But if you volunteered now or at any time since 2002, where would you go: to Afghanistan, perhaps to chase Osama, or to Iraq? Not a tough question. (If you support one, you'd still have to be stone blind, or not a liberal, to support the other.)
(5) Say what you want about lazy and coddled Americans, but those criticisms cut across party lines. The modern US army is a professional and high-tech one, vs one dependent on conscription and thousands of men armed with rifles. Searching for Osama requires counterinsurgency tactics, some of them, as practiced by our armed forces, distinctly unpleasant to liberals. Put simply, it's a Special Forces/10th Mtn war. Anyone can be a grunt (an Army regular infantryman). I doubt many liberals could reconcile Ranger work with their values, or would be gung ho enough even under the circumstances of 2002 to enlist to become a Ranger.
(6) Liberals don't tend to go for purely military solutions unless pressed, and they support other options to follow up or to work in tandem. A similarity: In the 60s, you could join---and were encouraged to join---the Peace Corps. Now, you could conceivably join some nonmilitary rebuilding effort in Afghanistan. I wonder what that would be called ....
http://www.us-arc.org/about.asp
http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/
http://www.usaid.gov/stories/afghanistan/fp_afghan_roadkid.html
Ah, right, the US Government: USAID, the US Dept of Commerce, and whatever nongov orgs that may remain there.
Finally, I'd have to ask scooter for the slightest evidence that liberals didn't sign up to go to Afghanistan in the narrow window between 9/11 and the abandonment of Afghanistan in late 2002.
Comments welcome.
-
Scooter's right again
[Read the article: Important day for FISA and amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hate when that happens!
The legal system is completely unfair. We need to scrap it and start over again.
Now, everybody form two lines. We need some volunteers for the aristocracy and some volunteers for the peasantry. Both will get an equal chance at being slaughtered by kings, tyrants, and inquisitions. Oh, and islamofascists too.
So form up!
-
Come on!
[Read the article: Self-satire scales new heights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everybody knows there is serious spending (wars, weapons, missiles, planes) and frivolous (health, poverty, children) spending.
Why? Because weapons and armies protect ALL of us, thus brightening our futures. Spending on poor and semi-poor sick children is just rank partisanship---pork barrel projects for special interest groups.
-
someone
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]isn't quite clear on the concepts of either "messianic" or "paranoia."
Scooter, there are many dictionaries available online. Try one or two of them.
-
@anonymous
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Those clever lil shrimps must sure have something on Paul, for him to support them despite all the anti-shrimp rhetoric he uses. Why, it's as bad as taking AIPAC money.