Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Re: We must minimize cruelties of war, by Robert S. McNamara, Aug. 8.
This man allowed thousands of my brothers to die needlessly because he was, as he admitted in his book on the subject of Vietnam, spineless and couldn't bring himself to tell Presidents Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy that the war could not be won. He has no credibility about the cruelties of war. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and instead put loyalty to those men ahead of our soldiers' lives. He deserves no respect from readers.
Re: We must minimize cruelties of war, by Robert S. McNamara.
I find it interesting to read Robert McNamara's present position where he believes President George W. Bush should "participate in the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity, which was recently established in The Hague." I agreed with President Bush when he made it clear that our country would not be a part of an organization that most certainly would use all of its authority to try to neutralize our standing in the world by weakening our military.
Having said that, I would be willing to make an exception and let the International Court in The Hague bring Robert S. McNamara before it and prosecute him for lying to Congress and the American people about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. More than 58,000 men and women were killed and so many thousands more were wounded and are forever carrying that burden for the rest of their lives. Many of us volunteered to go to Vietnam only to find out later that we should not have gotten involved there in the first place.
McNamara asks, "Is it legal to incinerate 83,000 people in a single night to achieve your war aims? Was Hiroshima legal?"
To that I ask McNamara for myself and thousands of other injured Vietnam vets, and the families of the 58,000-plus men and women who gave their all: Is it legal for you to lie to get our country into a war over an incident that did not happen? Literally hundreds of thousands died and were injured, if both sides are included!
I'm personally disappointed that our own U.S. justice system did not bring Robert S. McNamara up on charges for his involvement in getting our country into the Vietnam War (along with a certain Democrat president).
I personally would be inclined to believe just the opposite of any of his views. As a matter of fact, I can't believe he has the nerve to editorialize his thoughts. Anyone who was affected by that war, whether by being injured or losing a loved one, should feel free to clip this letter to the editor and send it to Mr. Robert S. McNamara. I'm sure I speak for many!
Re: We must minimize cruelties of war.
The column by Robert S. McNamara on Friday, is all that needs to be said about our involvement in Vietnam! During his so-called leadership of the Defense Department, we engaged in a war that lost more than 58,000 men and women. Why? Because he did not let them "fight to win" the war. How many would be alive today if McNamara and the others in Washington hadn't sent our troops into combat with one hand tied behind their back.
He should face the U.S. courts for crimes against this country for such actions. Instead, he is slopping up to the trough every month to collect his taxpayer-funded government retirement - the same taxpayers whose relatives he knowingly sent to their demise never giving them a chance to win.
Re: We must minimize cruelties of war.
The article by Robert McNamara proves that the country would have been far better off had he stayed in the car business. His cowardly attitude as he hid in the Pentagon providing no leadership and no will to win the Vietnam War resulted in many American casualties. McNamara was much more interested in his fake "cost reduction" program and his standing with LBJ than with actually winning a war. He went on to become rich but he was never successful.
Re: Time will tell whether history remembers the real or hyped reasons for war, Aug. 5.
Columnist Thomas Friedman will not let up on his disgusting agenda about the "good reasons" for invading Iraq. He cites Prime Minister Tony Blair, quoted by a British author, as worried about dictators like Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe and the "Burmese lot," and saying, "Yes, let's get rid of them all. I don't because I can't, but when you can you should."
This is the Good Reason for invading a sovereign nation to topple its government, seek out its ruling elite like some sort of OK Corral game, and act as high and mighty occupier. Who is next, since when you (the United States) can do it you should?
Britain lost its empire partly because those subjugated finally threw the British out and partly because the United States grew to supplant them. Now, the British government is our friendly lieutenant in global hegemony in order to stay in the game. It is no wonder that the British populace finds Bush dangerous and unlikeable because he acts like a cowboy who can only see black and white in international relations.
Many Europeans correctly view George "Bring 'em on" Bush as the epitome of ugly American conduct abroad. So why does Friedman believe that most British citizens are wrong while Blair is right to follow imperial U.S. power no matter what? Perhaps the majority of British people realize the folly and immorality of invading even bad governments just because we can do it when we want their resources or geographical position to impose power. They have a long history to look at, and perhaps the people there, rather than the political leaders, know that U.S. warmongering is wrong and will backfire.
The British public, and increasingly Americans, see that our governments' spinning a "legal cover" for invasion and demanding war based on lies of imminent threat are immoral. The emperor has no clothes, and neither does his lieutenant.
We invaded Iraq for no real reason other than the Bush administration wanted to. This is a war of choice, as Friedman concedes. Friedman thinks it is okay for democracies to "fight wars of choice" to overthrow regimes that government leaders think should be removed. He thinks it is okay just because they are bad guys rather than being imminent threats. But as Blair suggested, there is a whole world of bad guys out there. Should we be the arbiter of forced justice by invading the Congo, Sudan or Burma, where murdering citizens is routine, and while we are at it maybe our allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, hotbeds of terrorist support?
"Wars of choice" are wars of domination. Friedman does not get it. There are no good reasons for "wars of choice."
Re: Pat Oliphant's cartoon, Bush II of Arabia, Aug. 5.
This cartoon has the facts wrong. I wonder why you ran it.
The cartoon shows a Saudi Arab official demanding that President Bush classify and keep secret the section on foreign countries in the congressional report on 9/11 in order to protect Saudi-American interests.
In the real world the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, Saud Al-Faisal, came to the United States and pleaded with President Bush to release the report so that he can confront the accusations being made against his country in news reports.
The president refused this request. If Saudi Arabia doesn't want this report kept secret, who is the president trying to protect?
While Don Addis' editorial cartoon Ghost Ships of Tomorrow (Aug. 2) accurately predicts the future of manufactured home communities if proponents of redevelopment have their way, it also, probably inadvertently, perpetuates a couple of misconceptions about manufactured homes.
The central object in the cartoon, identified on its side as "Mobile homes without homes," is not a manufactured or "mobile" home at all, but is instead a trailer, complete with wheels and a hitch. Mobile homes, or manufactured homes as they are more accurately called these days, are mobile in name only. Affixed to the ground, they are difficult or, if older, next-to-impossible to move. The roadside sign reads "Another closed trailer park" and it points in the direction the trailer is rolling. The old "trailer park" moniker conjures up images of run-down, rusty trailers in squalid parks, hardly an accurate description of today's well-maintained, well-manicured communities.
The people who live in these manufactured homes, many of them struggling to keep their heads above poverty level, have to give up homes they've had for decades, say goodbye to old friends and neighbors, and throw themselves on the mercy of Section 8 housing. Those who have helped put them in this situation should be embarrassed, but the old stereotypes found in this cartoon may make it a little easier for them to look away.
Clearly, this cartoon captures the current predicament that manufactured home owners face. Stuck between soaring land values, developers chomping at the bit to make a bundle and a local government more than happy to oblige, they have found themselves deserted and disenfranchised, wondering where they will live when they must abandon their homes before the bulldozers arrive.
Re: No parking zone, by Tom Zucco, July 28.
My observations of mobile homes in Florida are based on living in one for 25 years, serving on the board of directors in the park and living through the frustrations of eight years of litigation with the park owners about a rent increase. The positives are many, including looking out for neighbors, social activities, safety and privacy if one desires. The negative is that the park owner makes up all the rules and regulations, and rent increases.
The state Legislature has the sole authority to regulate mobile home parks. While giving lip service to fairness, its decisions are based on what park owners want legislated. The alternative is to use the court system for redress of grievances. The judges seldom take into account the human element. Time and again, senior citizens are being denied access to what once was affordable housing. Mobile home owners had purchased their homes to enjoy their retirement. With the change of land use for commercial purposes, they are being asked to give up their homes, with very little compensation to satisfy the greed of investors.
It is time to fight back by placing a referendum on the ballot in 2004: "A change of land use for a mobile home park shall require the approval of a majority of the voters in the county in which the mobile home park is located."
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.
They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.