Posted January 2, 2003

Rangel

Charley Rangel's reputation as a liberal is wholly undeserved, as his call for mandatory military service makes clear. He has also been one of the leading drug war proponents, along with that other faux liberal, Ted Kennedy, aka "Chappy."

His stance on war and military service reminds me of Truman's undeserved reputation as an advocate of "civil" rights, which was due in part to his integration of the military. Before the armed forces were integrated, blacks were disproportionately assigned to duty behind the lines, which meant that they were less likely to become actual cannon fodder. After Truman, the chance of a young black soldier actually becoming a casualty rose. Call it equal opportunity mass murder victimization.

Maybe someone can invent a more pithy term.

~ Bill Stepp AKA"Keynesian Youth"

Regarding "How the War Party Sold the 1991 Bombing of Iraq to US," by Mitchel Cohen:

This article proves that many American don't understand the policy of their government. In many occasions the government fabricates stories to cause chaos around the world, and many innocent Americans pay dearly as a result of the arrogant foreign policy. People around the world love American, but their government creates the hostilities we are seeing now.

~ Mike Aziz, Vancouver, Canada

I would like to thank you for helping me to understand just how far outside our Constitution our past presidents have strayed. We the American people must not trust the mainstream media to tell the truth about world affairs. If they tell us an orange fell from off the tree, chances are it's a potato painted to look like an orange tied to a broken ladder leaning on the side of a dead oak. Please continue to give us Americans and the world the truth. Allah, the Glory, bless you all, and your families with good in this life and the next.

~ SH

The US Must Help

I just found your site by accident. Some of your views are worth consideration, but you don't seem to provide any answers to the thoughts, ideas and tone of your words. Yes, there must be an outlet for different ways at looking at our foreign polices and the way the world views us (America). But to suggest that the leaders are looking for a "fight" or at getting American hand's in every piece of the world pie is a little too much.

First of all the public does not have the stomach for "bad news," i.e. (large or small amounts of) bodies of US troops dead on foreign soil. Every conflict since Vietnam has proved that. Not only the public but our [leaders] and yours, whether you voted for them or not (and they are yours as well, since they and public opinion control the lives of our servicemen along with ultimately the destiny of this country) would not support a cause that had at least some positive outcome.

... No we should not be world policemen. No we should not use force first without other options. But must we give of ourselves or leave borders and areas open to threats from home and abroad.

Granted there is no complete solution. There will always be different opinions on what the US's intentions are. We can only offer help, with aid packages (which the US does at the cost of billions of tax dollars per year) or with support of military (through use of force or helping deliver that aid on US Air Force planes).

One last thought, I'm a Naval reservist on recall for two years. With two children at home that I miss greatly. I, along with all military personnel, want peace, for our country, our families. We do not wish death by starvation, by bombs, or by oppression but peace for all. For our children.

~ Matthew Keyes

Maps

Regarding "Ethnic Cleansing: Past, Present and Future" by Ran HaCohen:

The map at the beginning of this story described pre-1967 Israel as "occupied" areas. Did Ran HaCohen prepare the captions for the map, or did somebody else do so? Whoever prepared the captions for the map seems to imply that it is not legitimate for Israel to exist, as even pre-1967 Israel is "occupied" territory. This is not an antiwar view at all. It is, rather, the view of pro-war groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

~ Greg Saltzman, Michigan

Ran HaCohen replies:

The map was produced by the Palestinian "Applied Research Institute Jerusalem" (www.arij.org). The term "occupied" for the 1948 borders indeed reflects a Palestinian point of view, but it does not necessarily imply that Israel's existence is illegitimate. After all, these territories were taken by force, i.e. occupied. If you suggest a better map, I'd consider using it instead. It's rather difficult, because Israeli maps often have their own bias, like avoiding the term "occupied" altogether or deleting the Green Line.

Good News

Regarding JW's letter of December 26:

JW, your reference to Antiwar.com as a downer – was read with great anticipation. Please tell us where the good news is to be found! ...

Last time I looked, Antiwar.com is a "newspaper" and publishes the "news" as it is happening. Best commentaries of the day! What about a few chocolate chip cookie recipes, would that help. I will suggest it. Better yet, "On the Good Ship Lollipop" might be worked into the background like Muzak.

~ KM, Texas

Poisoned

Regarding "Greater Albania: a Place, or Just a State of Mind?" by Christopher Deliso:

I believe that the Albanian-Kosovars and the ethnic-Albanians in Macedonia uprised because they didn't have any rights. Maybe you should write that down, eh. You yourself said that when an Albanian bought a house in Ohrid the Macedonians protested and threw rocks. Isn't that discrimination and doesn't it show that he has no rights?

Also write about how Albanians get poisoned at school in Macedonia. Oh yeah, I heard that the Albanian National Army was gonna heat things up in the spring. You should write that.

Christopher Deliso replies:

Yes indeed, sir, there is really a problem with poisoned Albanians in Macedonia – just not the one you would like to present.

The CFR

Regarding "The Unresolved Problem of the United Nations" by Joseph Stromberg:

I was very interested to see the beginnings of the story about the League of Nations, expecting to also read about the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921, which succeeded it to carry out the same goals. But nothing was said about this most powerful and prestigious private club in the world.

As to the UN, your position was "wishy-washy" at best, and downright deceptive as to it being far from becoming the World Government. With the most popular president of the USA behind it, along with the VP and Secretary of State as CFR members, and the 9/11 "Cover-up Commission" loaded with them, they still have a stranglehold on our supposedly free country.

It is about time we quit playing with the issues of National Sovereignty and Liberty, and got down to the facts involving our very lives, like now.

But the last thing that many of you "conservatives" want mentioned, is the CFR. Apparently, it hits too close to home, where the real power and control lies now, and for the future World Government managers.

~ Warren A.

The Burden of Proof

Since the pretext for this impending War with Iraq has been centered around Bush's war on terrorism and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the burden of proof needs to be placed squarely on Bush's shoulders. If he invades Iraq and is unable to demonstrate that Saddam has these weapons of mass destruction, then the justification for the invasion will have been false. Thus the U.S. will have invaded based on proof they say they have before the invasion but with no proof in hand after the invasion to justify the financial cost to the American people or the loss of Iraqi lives to the world community.

So, what if Bush had a war and then couldn't prove his pretext for invasion? Someone needs to state now that this burden of proof is on Bush and he will be judged post-invasion on his original assumptions! Post-invasion conclusions should be drawn on the failures of his leadership and the war on terrorism.

~ Loren F., California