Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

There must be a better way to resolve our differences

Once again, when faced with a problem, we react in the same way as all superpowers of history have done: trot out the military.

Given our history, ideals and traditions, not to mention our genius and capabilities, why don't we try more peaceful means to settle international differences? What would the effect be if we had used more than $300-billion, not to wage war, but to improve the economy of the Palestinians to match that of Israel? Would that have exacerbated or reduced Arab anger toward the United States?

It would be well to heed the words of President Dwight Eisenhower:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

And: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

Frank Braccio, Treasure Island

New strategy needed

President Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and unilateralism have totally failed us as a country. His gang of neoconservatives hijacked the Republican Party, our government, our democracy and our military for their goal of establishing an American empire in the Middle East. Our servicemen and Iraqis are dying because of their greed for power and wealth.

Their goal was to get control of Iraqi oil and build more American military bases. American companies in Iraq have profited greatly by cheating the government and eliminating the competition from Europe, Russia, China and Japan.

Never mind that they lied to Americans about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's ties to 9/11 to justify the war. Never mind that more than 3,000 American soldiers have died and more than 22,000 are maimed for life. Never mind that nearly 800,000 Iraqis have died and that it has cost us $350-billion of our tax dollars.

This war in Iraq is not in the interests of the American people or our democratic government. We can secure our economic and political interests in the region through cooperation and negotiations with all the Middle Eastern countries, the United Nations and other world powers.

It is time to end this war and prevent another pre-emptive war, one against Iran. We need a whole new strategy and direction that can bring peace in the Middle East and restore our democracy and reputation in the world.

Pilar Saad, Tampa

Bush in boots

Want to end the fiasco of U.S. occupation of Iraq? Here's a sure-fire plan. Congress should pass a resolution stating that it will support the president's plans going forward only if he personally agrees to move into the Green Zone inside Baghdad and actually "walk the walk" as commander in chief.

Mr. President, it was your war from the beginning. And now you're choosing to ignore the advice of the Iraq Study Group, many of your top military commanders, and more than two-thirds of the American people, and escalate our involvement. And you say it doesn't matter what Congress thinks. You're the "decider" and that's that.

For once, Mr. Bush, show us some real courage, or get us the hell out of that bloodbath that we had no business getting into in the first place.

Peter Rodkinson, Seminole

Send Cheney 

Bush says no retreat on Iraq Jan. 15

President Bush is adamant about sending an additional 21,500 American troops to Iraq along with putting more pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take tougher action to improve security in the country. Vice President Dick Cheney is also adamant about the increased forces and is highly critical of any opposition. They both feel these additional troops will be the key to quelling the sectarian violence and salvaging this increasingly unpopular war.

If Bush and Cheney feel so confident that this will be the answer to victory, then along with these additional troops Bush should send Cheney as well as any other staunch supporters of his decision. Cheney and these supporters should even volunteer to oversee this final push and be on hand to advise Maliki on how he should maintain peace in his new democratic government.

Sending Cheney to Iraq would verify Bush's confidence that he is on the right track to victory. As Vice President Cheney stated, "You cannot run a war by committee."

Jack Burlakos, Kenneth City

Let the twins enlist

In order to demonstrate his commitment to the Iraq war, I believe that President Bush should ask his twin daughters (Barbara and Jenna) to volunteer for the military and request that they be part of the additional 21,500 troop "surge."

They're 25 years old, single and appear to be in excellent health. What a great "photo-op" it would be to have the two of them in a Hummer riding through Baghdad in full military attire!

Of course, the likelihood of that happening is the same as that of our "winning" this war!

Bob Lindskog, Palm Harbor

No more deaths

After the change in Congress following the election, the Iraq Study Group report, and against the advice of countless experts, President Bush continues to push his "troop surge" plan. Now, members of Congress have displayed their disgust with this policy.

It is time to cut our losses and leave Iraq. The budget, our children and, most of all, the soldiers in Iraq, deserve to hear the truth, and deserve a policy that will take our country out of this war. We simply cannot afford another death.

Matt Baird, St. Petersburg

Is Iraq sovereign? 

Bush says no retreat in Iraq Jan. 15, story

Does the international community question Iraq's new sovereignty as an independent nation after its lawful election, and establishment of a government? I don't think so.

This sovereignty means that any decision by any foreign government affecting Iraq must be worked out by "treaty" with the new government of Iraq. In other words, President Bush cannot "say" what he is going to do in Iraq unilaterally. Whatever he decides to do will have to be worked out by treaty between the government of Iraq and the government of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States says very clearly in Article II, Section 2: "He (the president) shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur ..."

In short, when Iraq became an independent sovereign nation, President Bush lost his unilateral powers of decisionmaking in matters affecting the nation of Iraq.

John S. Ripandelli, Tallahassee

Complaints, solutions 

Make them fight all of us Jan. 15, column by Thomas L. Friedman

The more I read Thomas Friedman, the more I like him. This column was dead on. Friedman is very green, but not a tree-hugger; he's realistic with energy independence. He also complains constantly. Yet for every complaint he offers a suggestion on how to fix the problem. This stimulates good debate, which seems all but lost today.

Many on both sides just scream out their opinion and walk away. It's as if very few people think for themselves and back up their opinions. I don't agree with Friedman 100 percent of the time, but I always know why he takes his position, and what his idea for improvement is. That's what an opinion column should be.

Christian Campbell, Spring Hill

Expand term limits

Most elected city and state officeholders now operate under term limits, and it is about time to limit the time our U.S. senators and members of the House of Representatives can serve also.

Term limits for senators should be for three terms, 18 years. For House members it should be nine terms or 18 years. Instead of spending time running for election they will have more time to listen to the people who elected them.

Jack Eaton, Clearwater

[Last modified January 19, 2007, 01:33:10]