Letters to the Editor
-
Well
I am at work, and bored currently, so I can read most anything, but this was dizzying and ...confusing?...Sort of like my letters and writings when I am freshly intoxicated and think, for about an hour, I am still as brillant as I was as a precocious teenager
...meaningless stuff is more appropriate to the entertainment venue rather than attempts at political insight..
The letters she responded to were typical kneejerk strawmen, and her responses did not seem to enlighten the plentiful factual inaccuracies.
still - ok, so far....then I get to the letters and see nothing but derision...not the usual brilliant thinking of the hyperthoughtful Saloon readership...not even the bitching was entertaining...
So, Camille - sweetums(condescention? no,- true compassion)...some adjustment of topic and focus is required...and based on the venom maybe a pseudonym...- - Camra Bowie has a nice fluffy ring to it...
This was too big an assignment for only 7 pages....and the letters would be all over the map if anyone could remember their train-of-thought by the time they finished the article...
blah blah blah...all in all a waste of time, sort of like this letter fragment...thanks.
-
Of course NOT
Re: Iraq is but one battle in the 60-plus-year ideological struggle we call "the war on terror.”
Agreed. But being tied down in Iraq does not help in the overall struggle. It hurts us.
For example, having so many troops in Iraq limits what we can do against Iran if we have to, and it limits us in what we can do in Afghanistan. And, in the 60-year struggle, there will be many places where terrorists can create bases. We need the flexibility to attack those new bases whenever we want.
Moreover, when we spend some $2 billion a week (just on a running basis, its much more on a long-term basis) and our enemy spends maybe $20 million a week (just a guess, it may be a lot less), then we are fighting the war that our enemy prefers us to fight.
Finally, if we were to withdraw only from the civil war part of the Iraq war, allowing the Iraqis to fight each other if they want to, then we could stay in Iraq and simply concentrate on killing terrorists. Remember, the surge was designed to buy time for the Iraqis to settle things with each other. If they don’t settle, then we are justified in withdrawing from the effort to keep them from killing each other, and then we can just kill terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. Quite a few independents and Democrats want to leave residual forces in Iraq to counter Al Queda. It is the idea of US troops walking beats in Baghdad, where they are excellent targets, that seems so absurd.
-
How Many Loony Lefties Does It Take To Keep Salon Going?
It really is amazing to see the spittle sputtering foolishness that a committed liberal, with a streak of libertarianism, like Paglia manages to trigger in the Salon reading type folk. This strange creature which (rather than "whom") has become utterly unhinged by George Bush and his Veep. It's as if they can't manage enough coherence to operate a keyboard.
Anyway, to depart from them, at least one lucid criticism of Miss Paglia's article, she says:
"'Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists' -- may please the ear with its syntactical symmetries, but it reveals a shockingly simplistic reading of geopolitics and indeed of life itself."
Simplistic? Maybe. But also a basic principle. No one, I think, disputes the complexities of the world and the problems we face. But very often and perhaps always, to solve them and persuade others to agree to do what is necessary, requires a basic set of ideas.
I'd remind everyone of the philosophy that ended the Cold War, which Paglia refers to, but dismisses as a point of comparison to our current problems with these Islamic savages (calling them that actually does a disservice to savages -- they are properly called "devils", and you don't have to be religious to believe that, just that you believe in the existence of evil).
When asked about his philosophy toward the Cold War -- Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying: "We win, they lose."
Good enough for me.
-
If we leave Iraq we LOSE much more than we SAVE
Much noise is being made about the costs to the US in dollars and lives in Iraq. What needs to be considered is the future costs in lives and dollars if we pull out of Iraq now - and this cost will be exponentially larger.
Repeatedly hearing 'Is it worth one more American life' is starting to turn my stomach. Somewhere along the way we forgot that American lives have been lost in massively larger numbers to defend our basic values with those being life, liberty and freedom of choice. In WWII half a million American lives were paid to stop a growing world wide threat. Today, Terrorism is indeed a world wide threat and what has been the 'cost' in terms of American lives?
America has grown weak in its inability to sacrifice. I am not, in any way, cheapening the value of those who have died in Iraq in service to this nation. Our soldiers are being attacked by roadside bombs and trained agents of Iran and Al Queda while self serving politicians and left leaning media agents snipe at them from behind. If we really expect our soldiers to fight and win for us, then we, at home, should at least have the commitment to provide them unwavering support at home.
What our coddled domestic masses are doing is reprehensible. Are we that far down the road of ruin that everything is to be measured in 'one more life?' Have we lost the circumspect ability to realize there are 6 billion people on this planet threatened by terrorism, and that in the history of mankind and warfare lifes are lost as a matter of course in order that future generations and billions of people can lead better lives?
We are dishonoring not only the current brave men and women that are paying the ultimate price today in Iraq, but all those that have fallen in combat in all our wars, bled, sweated and sacrificed in the past so that we can enjoy our current lives.
As far as the cost in dollars goes, what we are spending today in Iraq is a drop in the bucket when compared to present day dollars in WWII and the Cold War. These big numbers in current nominal dollars do nothing more than make headlines and serve agents such as 'The New York Crimes' in selling newspapers. Fourth Estate integrity is long dead as these agents of misinformation now see themselves as political parties and powers of influence more than they just reports the news - the sacred trust they were given.
Our troops need to be there today, tomorrow and for years to come. They are sacrificing the days of their lives that could be spent with loved ones and their very lives in some cases so that the future of the United States, and of this planet, can be a better future.
It would be a grave mistake to pull out this year, next year or any year before the job is completely finished.
Cindy Sheehan be damned! Nancy Pelosi's personal power gain be damned!
When will people view this as their own life and death struggle and not a matter of a few dollars and an inconvenience to their sensibilities.
The terrorists know this battle is not being fought in Iraq and measured with lives and dollars. This war is being fought right here in the States in terms of determination and sacrifice. The very nature of the word 'terror' should be the first clue in all this. The current defection of Republican politicians to the anti-war camp is a perfect example, as most of these polticians are up for re-election soon. They are thinking with one eye on the polls and the other eye on their jobs and they are sacrificing the safety of the nation for personal gain. Gutless wonders and men/women of no principle and character!
We all 'support' our soldiers with words and guilt left over from our disgraceful actions post Vietnam. But are we really supporting our soldiers by allowing the terrorists to fight this war right here in our 'polls' and media? We are stabbing them in the back!
This insurgency would be much closer to collapsing and we would be much closer to the war being won if American citizens, and not soldiers, were unwavering and willing to sacrifice. A united front, unblinking passage of any war funding bill, and determination at home would bash through the mentality of terrorism and defeat the enemy in very little time.
Disgracefully, we at home are not supporting our troops. We are placing them in harms way for longer periods of time and killing them by presenting a front to the enemy, to the agents of terror, a weak America that indeed is indecisive enough to be beaten by their methods.
And what would we really be sacrificing at home in order to present a determined, united front? A budget deficit? Make ourselves feel better and more 'civilized?'
The future cost of allowing terrotists and those that support terrorist methods (Iran) to win this war and establish yet another 'Taliban' and an area from which to train, plan and launch future attacks with much more deadly weapons is going to be so high in both lives and dollars that anyone wanting to pull out now will be ashamed of their current actions. Of course these people will then blame someone else and not take accountability for what will surely be a disaster penned in blood ink from their hands.
Shame on you all!