We write a lot about the coming Iraqi Bush War, and we bandy about pundits and news sources, but how what about the "regular people" in the newspapers? Letters to the Editor - I am sure, though, the apologists for this war will find a way not to go. After all, North Korea has an army of more than 1 million men and no oil. (Arizona Republic) - The Jewish question could be settled at last. He would see peace advocates standing aside as the second Holocaust began and, when accused of being complicit, they would say, "Who, moi?" Yes, Hitler would find the world much more hospitable to his ideas, and he would think, "If only I'd been born 50 years later." (Arizona Republic) - That misconception is almost as widespread as the notion that the U.S. wants to attack Iraq to "get its oil." As a number of commentators have pointed out, the cheapest, easiest and least risky way to "get" Iraqi oil is to lift the economic sanctions against Iraq and simply let them make deals with oil companies to export as much as they want. Oil companies would like that, too (Seattle Times) - It looks like the peace movement actually supports (and agrees with) our troops more than the pro-war movement in terms of Iraq. Perhaps the news media should refer to the next peace march as a "Support Our Troops" march. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) - But to squander this opportunity for fools to rush in blindly, without probing talks, apparently afraid to haggle, not having a clue where the traps are set, gleefully burning all the bridges behind us before we leap. Now that is crazy. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) - What exactly is "democratic" about invading a sovereign nation, taking control of it and appointing a leader of one's own choosing? (San Francisco Chronicle) - Kosovo and Afghanistan have been liberated from brutal dictatorships. And going back further than 50 years, Western Europe and Japan after World War II are further examples of what we should be doing. Whether we win the war in Iraq will largely depend on how we conduct the peace that follows. (San Francisco Chronicle) - There must be many of us who do not see the justification for this war, yet are not pacifists -- who see a pre-emptive war as both immoral and an encouragement to terrorists, but who also see Saddam Hussein as vile. (San Francisco Chronicle) - Those who think the war protesters favor Saddam Hussein over President Bush are wrong. How many people think Saddam is not a tyrant? I think what's on the minds of most people is that force should be the last option and not all options have been used. (Duluth News Tribune) - Our president is no dummy. He has simply been seeing the wrong light. Bush, no matter how much he treads the ground separating the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the cradle of civilization, and Ur, the birthplace of Abraham, father of the Hebrew people, is no Moses. Moses had God at his beck and call. Poor Bush: He opted to settle for second best! (Duluth News Tribune) - The word "it's" should not have an apostrophe in it. (Duluth News Tribune) - Everybody agrees Kim Jong-Il is paranoid despot, but in seeking to intimidate him with belligerent rhetoric, President Bush seems to be, as a Texan might put it, "getting in a urinating contest with a skunk." (Tacoma News Tribune) - Should we let the terrorists take over our country, and dictate how we live in America? What kind of message are these protesters sending to Saddam Hussein? We're playing right into his hands. (Corpus Christi Caller-Times) - Have these so-called Americans forgotten 9/11 so soon? Why don't they demonstrate against Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda terrorists? These cold-blooded murders are not going to stop just because of the international inspections in Iraq. (Corpus Christi Caller-Times) - The Bible says wars are justified under certain circumstances. After reading many news reports about war protests I felt it was time for all of us to ask ourselves about the impending war. America must decide when, why and how. (Sioux City Journal - The effect of your twisted logic and your naïve contempt for the Bush administration?s Iraqi foreign policy measures only encourages the continuing deceit and deception of the world?s worst tyrant. So I say this to Danny Glover, Marisa Tomei, Jeananne Garafalo, Sheryl Crowe, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Mike Farrell, Mia Farrow and the scores of other Hollywood appeasers: Please go back to La-La Land and let the grownups deal with this monster. (Dispatch-Herald, 3.3.2003) I tried to take all of these from one day--today. But I know there's one from Corpus Christi from yesterday, and I know the Dispatch-Herald link will evaporate in favor of tomorrow's letters. But I don't feel like going through all fifty states right now. And I'll get around to an international perusal, as well, but I'm not up to it at the moment. In the meantime ... what do you think? I think it sounds a lot out there like it does in here. So to speak. What's going on in your community? thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In my whitebread upstate NY town, our local letters to the editor are absolutely dominated by anti-war sentiment. It may surprise some here, but I have actually contributed to the utter humiliation of anyone who tries to simulate intelligence in letters attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq. The ratio of anti- vs. pro-war letters in my hometown paper is far more lopsided than here at sciforums. In fairness, they only take my letters each 30 days. I consider it my own little column, and enjoy it a lot. I wonder if the anti-war letter-writers are similarly more porlific than the dogs of war elsewhere.
More to think about ... jump in any time Seriously--we at Sciforums might as well be writing these letters to the editor. It looks so similar .... Honestly, I'm too tired to go raiding all of London's newspapers right now, and if you don't mind, even I don't care what French newspaper editors think right now. In the meantime, here's something to read ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please? (Observer) Hypewaders--Does the newspaper have a website? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And you would be just as wrong, The oil companies want total control of the oil, GWBs firm has first choice. Tell me which would garner the greater profits? To take over Iraq's oil (by having the US military invade Iraq) or buy it from them.
Not to mention the other "benefits" that this gives dubbya. Distractions at home and abroad from the worsening situation at home. A nice foothold in the Middle east from which he can strike at Iran etc. (No doubt his desire to "leave iraq as soon as possable" is all well and good seeing as he must KNOW that his stationing troops in Iraq and no doubt he will go out of his way to provoke this, will lead to attacks on the his invading forces giving him excuse to stay on until "peace" is restored, we all know that will not be for a long time to come.) And i agree if he controlls the oil and can dictate who gets what shares in return for deals profitable and in the interests and controlled by America, thats much better than buying the oil. Not to mention it undermines Opecs ability to control oil prices as America can then sell off Iraqi oil for a pitance to themselves and their "allies" that helped them destory Iraq and opress and resistance that arises in Iraq after the initial invasion. Then when they have a firm grip on Iraq and the oil and have the excuse of continued civil unrest to stay they will strike at the next target, possably Iran and so on and so on. This is the Start of WWIII with America alone trying to take over the world with all subbservient to it and if they keep getting their way this war will be raged with only America and its "Allies" attacking as the others try to suck up to it against the will of the people.
