Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 9
-
GOP - the Warmonger party
[Read the article: The GOP is the party of the Iraq war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The war in Iraq remains popular with the GOP base. They want to stay and keep waging war. They would immediately turn against anyone who advocated withdrawal or even questioned the wisdom of staying
I always suspected as much. Even before the ink was barely dry on Hans Blick's 2002 WMD reports, these rats and vermin wanted to invade and occupy Iraq. Destroy it and its people, then use private contractors to rebuild for more profits. Like the Proto- Nazis they are, imbued with Nazi imperatives, they couldn't wait for their Texas Fuhrer to emulate the one from 75 yrs. ago. Seig Heil, Der Bushster!
The GOP's Nazi links and connections, which began in the Republican Heritage groups in the 1980s, were first exposed by Russ Bellant in his book, Old Nazis, The New Right and the Republican Party, South End Press, 1991. Bellant meticulously ties the threads together to show how the old S.S. and its networks (e.g. in Latvia, the Ukraine etc.) would find a new home in the US of A. Compliments of it GOP friends, eager to have them here to help, including stealing elections down the line.
Thus, it isn't astounding we behold a Nazi dynamic in play in Iraq, with the old Nazis probably in the background calling the shots for our new Fuhrer.
The Republicans who back this vile occupation and destruction of a country can be proud of themselves - they hearken back in direct lineage to the millions of "good Germans" who all looked the other way while millions of their countrymen were gassed and incinerated decades ago.
These disgusting little U.S. bred Nazis should be proud of their loyalty and obstinacy and indeed, being able to disguise it as "protecting the country" - just as Hitler did after he occupied Poland in 1939.
-
Never a "war"
[Read the article: The GOP is the party of the Iraq war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anonymous wrote:
"And the Democrats are the party of losing a war. AGAIN.
"
Wrong, bozo! The war is actually in Afghanistan where most of the real al Qaeda operatives are, and who are now ramping up successes. Iraq was always first and foremost an ILLEGAL OCCUPATION- not a just "war". It violates directly Article IV of the Nuremberg laws.
No imperial power in modern times has sustained or "won" an occupation against national interests, neither will we. Ask the French after Dien Bien Phu and the Russkies after their own Afghan adventure and occupation in the 1980s.
In reality, Iraq is a monumental recruiting tool for al Qaeda on a worldwide basis, it never has and never will redound to our benefit. The sooner U.S. forces pull out and re-deploy, the better for us all. This is not a "loss" but a restoration of sanity.
-
Editor's choice
[Read the article: The secret life of sperm]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anonymous wrote:
Exacerbated by the fact that your three editors choice letters are precisely ALL of, and the ONLY three letters that say the article is good.
I never waste time getting my shorts in a snit over "Editor's Choice" selections. Yeah, I firmly believe that at least 15 of my 63-odd contributions ought to have been EC-marked, but who am I? One lone contributor. But in examining a number of the EC-picked letters from different threads, articles, it is clear that selection effects are present - and these arise from the particular "editor" doing the choosing. In the end, it is all subjective - so who cares, really?
Receiving a little red star merely means on that particular day, for that comment you and the particular editor's would-be voice or opinion coincided. It is really not an objective measure of quality at all.
-
Not just that he's a jerk - this guy merits an ASTERISK
[Read the article: When Barry passes Hank]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bonds, by contrast, doesn't play Sosa's game, and doesn't seem to care. So the guy's a jerk; who cares?
I care! I recall Hammerin' Hank from when I lived in Milwaukee from 1946-56. Went to County Stadium often, listend to Braves' games on radio and recall Hank - apart from his superb on-field performance- having to work at the local A&P in the off-season (as many players did then to make ends meet). Hank, always a gentleman, never hesitated to give autographs - and I remember mine was on top of a Kellogs Corn Flakes box top.
Hank EARNED every homer he got. He relied on no drugs, and at times it took a great toll, as he approached Ruth's record (after the team betrayed Milwaukee and moved to Atlanta) and the redneck KKK'ers down there were his biggest boo-birds and threats.
Bonds, by contrast, is a freak and a cheat. Let's not mince words. His homer production spiked beyond statistical norms (80% significance increase beyond what a null hypothesis of 'no drug use' would allow) after he started taking steroids.
This man is not fit to shine Hank's shoes far less walk in them. He's a disgrace to the game and to REAL long time fans - as opposed to the current of millions of Yup wannabes, who go to games with their brie and cheese as opposed to brats and beer.
The day he ties Hank's HR record the cosmos will weep that a cheat of such magnitude could attain prominence equal to a genuine gentleman and one of the game's best players. When he "breaks" the record it will be the darkest day in baseball history except for the Black Sox scandal.
I personally will not celebrate this cheat's accomplishment, I KNOW Hank won't and I hope to hell that Bud doesn't either!