What did we win?
After listening to the hawks bragging about how the Bush surge strategy worked, and as a result, we won the war, I just have a couple of questions. As the father of a soldier who served in 2003, I have followed the war very closely from its beginning.
I know that we lost more than 4,000 of our troops and that we may have killed as many as 1.3 million Iraqi civilians and drove another 2 million from their homeland. I know that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this adventure that may soon be more than $1 trillion. I know that we destroyed most of the infrastructure and that we are not doing that much to rebuild it.
I know that we contaminated the entire country with depleted uranium and that it has been declared an environmental catastrophe by the World Health Organization. I know that we still have 50,000 troops there as well as around 100,000 mercenaries who perform pretty much the same duties our troops were performing except they make five times the money as the soldiers and have way less rules governing them as far as killing civilians goes.
So I guess I would like someone to tell me how we can say that we won, when it looks to me as though it may not be over. And the big question I have is (if indeed the war is over) what did we win?
Gerald Eldridge
Franklin
···
Not so black-and-white
In his Sept. 3 letter, “Sharing the guilt,” Thomas Coleman Sr. demonizes our current president: “Since Obama’s presidency, America has become one of the most barbaric countries on earth” because our tax dollars are funding abortions “both here and abroad.” According to factcheck.org, federally subsidized funds in high-risk insurance pools may become available for abortions in the U.S. in the case of incest, rape or when the mother’s life is in danger.
There is passion and compassion on both sides of many issues, Mr. Coleman. Interestingly, nearly three-quarters of the women having abortions in the U.S. identify themselves as religious, including 40 percent who self-identify as either Catholic or born-again/evangelical.
Furthermore, I hope the letter writer and others opposed to abortion on moral grounds will be first in line to adopt the 1.2 million babies born in the U.S. every year should abortion ever become illegal here. I also hope they have no objection to taxpayer funding of prenatal care, foster care and extensive lifetime care of the many babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome and other special needs.
Regarding stem cell research, many consider it “barbaric” to allow people to suffer and die of diseases that could well be cured by modern science.
And does Mr. Coleman oppose the recent trillion-dollar wars, also supported by our tax dollars, started by the previous president of this so-called “civilized Christian” country, responsible for the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of the already-born?
Obviously, questions of morality are not always quite so black-and-white.
Nancy Glista
Franklin
···
Real Americans needed
It has been estimated that by the year 2020, the interest paid to communist China by our tax dollars — just the interest alone — will be sufficient to pay the entire cost of maintaining and equipping the largest army in the world, the Red Army of China.
We have jumped into all things green, even though there is much regarding the rationale that is either highly doubtful or absolutely false. By doing so without serious scientific research, we increase our dependency on foreign oil, we degrade our quality of life and we send ourselves down the slippery slope of second-class nations. Also, we enrich a group of countries that is decidedly not our friend, that finances hostile against our country as well as individual Americans.
Yet those we elected fear addressing the issue candidly, lest some mob in some distant land riots, burns our embassy or slaughters our missionaries who devote themselves to lending medical care to the natives. All the while, they continue to stone their citizens to death or burn schools for educating girls, but we find it inconvenient to talk about this as a nation.
We have created a political royalty in this country, with the active support of the mainstream media. Ask yourselves before you vote this time: Would I retain an employee who squandered all my possessions while enriching himself? Our Founding Fathers had no experience at government, yet they did pretty well. My advice is simply, “Throw them all out and start over with real Americans.”
William D. Duddy
Dedham
···
LePage’s brass knuckles
All of the candidates agree that we need to break away from our dependency on foreign oil and our reliance on petroleum-based energy sources. The recommended solutions are wind and solar power, both of which are unreliable and dependent on the weather.
Parts of the nation are already using “rolling blackouts” because our aging power grid simply cannot support current peak demands. If the dreams of electric “green” cars come to pass, the power to run them must come from somewhere, and plugging millions of “rechargeable” vehicles into this grid will crash the entire power system.
The only possible way to provide the clean and safe domestic power we will need is nuclear power. Paul LePage seems to be the only candidate who understands the reality of this. The other candidates can offer no plan other than to say we should “try” to somehow reduce emissions and continue to rely on fossil fuels.
The safety standards for nuclear power are much higher than they were years ago. Three Mile Island, under the old rules, still did less damage than the BP oil spill and our current wars for areas in our “national interest” (i.e. oil). Paul is not a spokesman for the liberal agenda, which uses politically correct buzzwords like “green” and “environmental.” He’s using plain language to give honest answers to real-world problems.
The precious metal we need in the Blaine House is not Libby’s silver spoon, it’s Paul’s brass knuckles.
Mike Garrow
Brewer
···
Libby’s scare tactics
I’d like to say I don’t believe it, but in truth, this is a normal response from Democrats. Libby Mitchell certainly cannot defend her record, so she wants to scare us away from voting for Paul LePage.
In Maine, the environment seemed the best possible place to attack, so we get pictures of burning oil wells. Paul LePage has no plans for offshore drilling. He plans to put every possibility on the table and choose what will be best for families in Maine.
He is interested in hydropower, and so am I. Why do we pay so much for power when we have swift running water all around us and hydropower is the cheapest way to generate?
I would like a real solution to the excessive rates we now pay. I think Paul is the man to find that solution.
Jarom Atwater
Old Town