My March '03 letter to the editor

My March '03 letter to the editor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

CrappyDom -> My March '03 letter to the editor (10/27/2006 5:25:16 PM)
I was cleaning out some books and ran across a clipping of a 2003 letter I wrote to the editor, I find it very very sad. Re: War and the Democrats, an editorial by Norman P. LeClair insultingly likens those who protest President Bush's invasion to those who protested President Roosevelt's decision to enter WWII. It was the Republican's who attacked Roosevelt (a Democrat) for trying to enter the war against the Nazis. Many of those who criticize this war do so not because they doubt that Saddam is evil, although President Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't think so when they provided military support to him. They protest because they fear that Iraq will not be put back together and that after our victory, the aftermath will be greater bloodshed and rising terrorism in the years to come. It is vitally important that we never forget it was the liberal left that wanted the United States to join the fight in WWII. It was the Republicans who wanted us to ignore the horrors occuring in Europe and bury our heads in the sand. Once again the Republicans want to bury something in the sand but this time it is our soldiers. Oh god I wish I had been wrong and I am SO pissed I was right.

Manawyddan -> RE: My March '03 letter to the editor (10/28/2006 5:25:02 AM)
I didn't write a letter to the editor, but a few weeks after the invasion I sent around an e-mail to the several co-workers and friends I usually debate politics with, predicting ... or rather stating I hoped that I was unsuccessful in predicting ... a civil war and the possibility of a breakup of the country.

Masterofmind1973 -> RE: My March '03 letter to the editor (10/28/2006 8:09:05 PM)
One cannot act as an Imperial power without the will or desire to back up military gains with sound administration and civil service. Personally I was in favour of the removal of Saddam but the clear lack of any follow up strategy has irrevocably damged the administrations of both Bush and Blair (the latter a good job too in my opinion). I would estimate that all military and civil strategists could forsee the current anarchy without any coherent plan for after Saddams defeat. The fact that such a scenario now exists and the stunning number of casualties shames those who encouraged such a war without a definate plan for the aftermath. And I say this as a rabid right winger!!!!

CrappyDom -> RE: My March '03 letter to the editor (10/28/2006 8:18:07 PM)
Thanks for being honest. There are more than "my" way of doing things, all I ask is they be done well and done for the benefit of America and I didn't think Iraq met those. My plan for Afghanistan involves killing all the warlords and their first born so while I am a whiny left wing liberal, I don't mind heavy use of the sword, I just ask that it be well planned. Iraq was not well planned. What pissed me off most about this is that the US will be crippled by this because we will once again be fearful of doing anything similar, not because it is impossible but only because we have an incompetent example. If Bush had listen to the State Department, the Republicans would be sailing to victory and Jeb would be looking to run in '08. Thank god (in my left wing commie bleeding heart sort of way) they fucked it up completely! Glad to have an intelligent right winger on the board! I look forward to crossing swords with you...

popeye1250 -> RE: My March '03 letter to the editor (10/28/2006 8:26:25 PM)
Crappy, I was against the war when it started too but for totally different reasons. I just don't think we should be helping foreign countries all that much and to be honest, I just don't give a shit about Iraqis. Plus, I don't want my tax dollars spent on things like that. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I think a long period of isolation would be good for this country.

Masterofmind1973 -> RE: My March '03 letter to the editor (10/28/2006 8:34:26 PM)
With Afgahnistan there is a similar yet totally different agenda. Removal of the Taliban was done with stunning success by US forces yet now Nato have control the battles rage ever more ineffectively. I do not under any means subscribe to the belief that British and Canadian forces are less well enabled to do the job but that the gains made were not consolidated and again the powers lack the will to finish what was started. Killing every warlord and their progeny will just lead to another warlord taking his place. We (the British) have occupied Afghanistan 3 times in our history and the Russians twice and now Nato is having its say and still the place remains lawless and through its opium the most dengerous place on the planet. 80% of the worlds heroin originates in Afghanistan (reports published by HM Government) and it is difficult to believe that the powers, be they Nato or whoever, cannot rationalise that destroying this insidious trade would be beneficial. In my opinion they should agent orange the whole bloody country and eliminate the trade for good (or at least for a substantial period). I cannot see the benefits of British soldiers fighting and dying yet again for this bloody place. There does not appear to be any longterm strategy for Afghanistan (as with Iraq) and the dillydallying leads to casualties and the strengthening of extremist resolve. I would love to see a politician, any politician be they left or right stand up and declare an absolute policy on Afghanistan but I believe I will wait in vain and yet more soldiers will die as they have done there for centuries.

meatcleaver -> RE: My March '03 letter to the editor (10/29/2006 1:34:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Masterofmind1973 With Afgahnistan there is a similar yet totally different agenda. Removal of the Taliban was done with stunning success by US forces yet now Nato have control the battles rage ever more ineffectively. The US removed the Taliban government from power, they didn't remove them from the country. Military power is great for topping a government but it's no good at creating a solution to a country's problems which is why NATO went in. It was to rebuild and keep the peace, not to fight a war, the US was supposed to have done that but hadn't and now Nato are having to do it. Why didn't the US do it? Because they never got out of their armoured cars and mixed with the Afghans, if they had, they would have found a lot of Taliban fighters with local support.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125