Writer was wrong on Iraq

  • Follow Letters

Again! On Dec. 26, Lowell Greenbaum espoused his socialist, Marxist leanings (“Obama ended costly war”), just like the one currently in the White House.

If Dr. Greenbaum would recall, Congress approved the invasion of Iraq – both Democrats and Republicans. I applaud our troops. However, their hands were tied by not letting the military do their job without political intervention. When you go to war, you go all-out and destroy all opposition regardless of who gets hurt.

The intelligence at the time said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and other governments believed it, as did the United Nations. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are not responsible for the attempt by President Obama and the Democrats to force communist doctrine on this nation, and I will oppose those attempts.

I am forwarding a letter to my Georgia legislators requesting that a bill of secession be introduced with a provision that only natural-born residents of Georgia be allowed to vote on the measure. Robert Smock’s letter of Dec. 26 (“President is destructive”) was right on the mark as far as the Democrats.

Don Turner

Augusta

Comments (18)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
omnomnom
3964
Points
omnomnom 01/02/12 - 01:42 am
0
0

the military operates at the

the military operates at the discretion of the government.. unless there's been a coup & i haven't heard about! Your third paragraph needs more explanation, Don.... and lastly, you would save our nation by destroying it?

southernguy08
415
Points
southernguy08 01/02/12 - 08:28 am
0
0

I think the Chronicle just

Unpublished

I think the Chronicle just puts Lowell Greenbomb's LTE's in just to give us all a good laugh, Don. But I do have two questions, one for you, and one for Omnomom. To Don, what's with the secession talk? And to Omnomom, "Save our nation by destroying it?" What's up with that?

JRC2024
6955
Points
JRC2024 01/02/12 - 09:44 am
0
0

While I agree that you have

While I agree that you have to totally defeat your enemy to win and that the military has been hampered by politicians in the last several wars. I disagree on your suggestion of secession. We can change the direction of our nation by voting out all the liberals and especially obama. But you would have to have an amendment that anyone on welfare, section 8 and the like would not be able to vote. You know they will not vote out the hand that feeds them.

curly123053
3194
Points
curly123053 01/02/12 - 10:05 am
0
0

Ever since the Vietnam War

Ever since the Vietnam War our troops have had to fight with a set of guidelines and rules to go by instead of dominating and subduing the enemy. I remember one allied invasion in which the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were in retreat under a huge American lead allied invasion. Our troops were on the verge of over-running Hanoi and possibly ending the Vietnam War and preserving peace and freedom for the people of the region. I remember they had to stop at a LINE somewhere. They were awaiting permission from D.C. on whether they could go ahead and capture the enemy capital and end the war once and for all. Allied forces had the advantage and the confidence they could complete the job. But the orders from the White House and Capital Hill was to stop and not finish the job. Our commanders in the field of combat will cannot win wars with leashes wrapped around their necks. They need to be able to do what is necessary to bring the enemy to it's knees in surrender as was done in the World Wars. Politicians will never win wars in the field of combat.

Riverman1
70429
Points
Riverman1 01/02/12 - 10:17 am
0
0

We finally defeat Communism

We finally defeat Communism (at least in other countries, heh) and then these crazy Islamists go to war with us over religion. Is the world crazy or what? Sometimes you just want to give up.

Jon Lester
2208
Points
Jon Lester 01/02/12 - 10:46 am
0
0

I gather you don't believe

I gather you don't believe peoples of other nations and persuasions have the same natural rights as we.

You speak of socialism as if it were a bad thing. Feel free to refuse your Social Security checks and Medicare coverage. If you think it's something the current administration practices, then I can only conclude that you wouldn't know it if you saw it, because the current president isn't even very much of a liberal on most things. His re-election will happen not because the nation will be especially enthused about another four years, but because the GOP nominee will have to promise theocratic fascism and an irrational combination of tax cuts and aggression against Iran to even have anything to talk about.

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 01/02/12 - 11:08 am
0
0

Lester, why would someone

Lester, why would someone refuse money that is owed to them? They have paid into both of those and should be able to have what they paid into returned with a certain amount of interest. It only becomes socialist when you take out more than you put in plus a certain reasonable amount of interest. The GOP nominee will not have to promise any of what you charge. He will simply have to put the focus on the economy, Obama's part in running it into the ground and how to fix it.

IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG
76
Points
IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG 01/02/12 - 12:55 pm
0
0

Mr. Turner, with all due

Mr. Turner, with all due respect, your letter is laughable. Since I am obviously misinformed please explain to me how, “President Obama and the Democrats (sic) force(ed) (a) communist doctrine on this nation”? Your notions are clearly extremist as demonstrated by your suggestion of secession. Not to mention, what is your point? Of anything? In the future, your argument might be aided by staying on the topic at hand (ie. stick to why you disagree with Lowell Greenbaum’s original letter.)

FalseHopeLooseChange
5
Points
FalseHopeLooseChange 01/02/12 - 01:42 pm
0
0

Obama recently signed The

Obama recently signed The National Defense Authorization Act that contains a section that says the president has the power to transfer suspected members and supporters of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated" groups "to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."

(Watch out Tea Party! You'll soon be enjoying the hospitality of the Muslim Brotherhood or housed in Syria's Tadmor Prison.)

Does this new law sound communistic or what?

IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG
76
Points
IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG 01/02/12 - 01:59 pm
0
0

No, under the definition of

No, under the definition of communism it does not sound even the slightest bit communistic. Perhaps, you should look up what communism truly is and not remain so tragically misinformed.

Conservative Man
4578
Points
Conservative Man 01/02/12 - 03:10 pm
0
0

Stick to the point Mr.

Stick to the point Mr. Turner. I'm thinking that your main point was to say, we do not need more Obama apologists like Mr Greenbaum. Maybe by next Nov. apologizing for this incredible failure (Mr Obama) will become the least of the Democrats worries. Their main worry will be relevance in the body politic.

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 01/02/12 - 04:11 pm
0
0

IRYW, the textbook definition

IRYW, the textbook definition of communism is different than what communism is in reality. Perhaps you should look at the application of communism as well as the definition so as to not remain so tragically misinformed.

dougk
3
Points
dougk 01/02/12 - 06:11 pm
0
0

Now, that's an intelligent

Unpublished

Now, that's an intelligent statement, Bruno. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Sameera
2
Points
Sameera 01/02/12 - 07:59 pm
0
0

Mr. Turner, you said, "When

Mr. Turner, you said, "When you go to war, you go all-out and destroy all opposition regardless of who gets hurt." Two things come to mind: Oklahoma Federal Building and September 9, 2011. We were warred against regardless of who got hurt. How did you like that? It wasn't nice was it? Somehow some arrogrant Americans think that when we go to war, it should be just as you said. Think back to Hiroshima 1945. We went all out in that horrific event, too, didn't we? What was the devastating cost to human lives? But YOU would suggest that a method as egregious as atomic and nuclear weaponry was alright. You didn't say it but you implied in your statement. While you and others like you boast of your 'leave no enemies behind,' be assured that every first, second and third-world country now have the same nuclear technology that we have to blow us, yes US, to kingdom come. Several Asian and a few Middle Eastern countries will not think twice about wiping us off the map. WE are now the economic underdog and since other countries have nuclear capability, we might be underdogs in this capacity, too. Stop flexing muscles that we no longer have! Nothing remains the same. Empires great than we have fallen. You need not think that President Obama is the cause. We started falling when behind-the-scenes strategists began implementing the New World Order under Clinton and the Bushes. Capitalism was at it's best when people had access to economic upward mobility. The NWO does NOT provide for that climb for most of the people anymore. That is why jobs have been sent overseas, why education is targeted for de-funding by congress and why the newly-entering workers will no longer have the benefits their parents had. All you can do is talk about a somewhat archaic political and economic system called communism. Communism is not our threat! The leaders in congress are. We vote them in but they get paid by the corporations. Now who do you think they really represent? Not us, Mr. Turner, not us.

Little Lamb
40104
Points
Little Lamb 01/02/12 - 08:12 pm
0
0

Sameera wrote to Mr.

Sameera wrote to Mr. Turner:

Think back to Hiroshima 1945. We went all out in that horrific event, too, didn't we? What was the devastating cost to human lives? But YOU would suggest that a method as egregious as atomic and nuclear weaponry was alright.

I do not presume to speak for Mr. Turner; but, speaking for myself, I do think that there are circumstances appropriate for deployment of nuclear weapons. What's the use of having them if you cannot use them?

I also think it is inappropriate for the United States and the United Nations to sanction Iran for trying to obtain nuclear weapons. If it's okay for the U.S., Russia, France, Britain, Israel, China, India, Pakistan and who knows who else to have these weapons, it should be okay for Iran to have them.

Riverman1
70429
Points
Riverman1 01/02/12 - 08:20 pm
0
0

Many say there are billions

Many say there are billions of Muslims and we will never change their attitude by nuking a city or two, but I don't think that's true. It was said the Japanese would fight to the death because the emperor was god or some nonsense like that. Did we change their attitude and turn them into a modern, western nation almost over night with two bombs? Their god now eats at McDonald's in Tokyo, uses the restroom there too.

Little Lamb
40104
Points
Little Lamb 01/03/12 - 02:29 pm
0
0

One of the sharpest political

One of the sharpest political columnists writing today is Michelle Malkin. But even the great ones sometimes get it wrong; today's column in the Chronicle print edition is one of those days. Malkin spends the column attacking Ron Paul by attacking his supporters. Here is a quote:

Youthful Paul supporters . . . have little interest in a Reagan-like “shining city on a hill” message or talk about a threatening “evil empire” abroad. To the contrary, they are excited by the “leave me alone” candidate who thinks the rest of the world is not our business. Apparently, they share Paul's indifference to the looming threat of a nuclear Iran or the almost complete absence of freedom in most Islamic nations.

In the first place, Iran is nowhere near being able to deliver a nuclear weapon to a target. But, if and when that day comes, such a weapon would be little threat to world health. Look at how quickly Japan bounced back after the bombs were dropped on them.

Iran is a sovereign nation. The United States should not treat them like children.

justthefacts
17974
Points
justthefacts 01/03/12 - 03:31 pm
0
0

"But, if and when that day

"But, if and when that day comes, such a weapon would be little threat to world health. Look at how quickly Japan bounced back after the bombs were dropped on them." Oh, OK, that should make Israel feel a little better about a Nuclear Iran.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 01/03/12 - 03:46 pm
0
0

Israeli nukes > 100 “Based

Israeli nukes > 100

“Based on plausible upper and lower bounds of the operating practices at the reactor, if the power of the Dimona reactor remained at 75 MWt, Israel could have produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons by 2005, with the stockpile growing to at least 125 but probably fewer than 250 weapons by around 2010.”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke-stockpile.htm

justthefacts
17974
Points
justthefacts 01/03/12 - 03:50 pm
0
0

Good thing they have never

Good thing they have never had a reason to use them. Hope that remains the case.

Sameera
2
Points
Sameera 01/04/12 - 05:51 pm
0
0

Little Lamb: You might wish

Little Lamb: You might wish to change the 'Little Lamb' pseudonym to 'Little Hawk.' "What's the use of having them if you cannot use them?" is non-sequitur in form. If that logic were applied to everything in life, then it stands to reason that humans/nations could do whatever they want because they would have the means. Because God has endowed us with the highest intellect of all primates and mammals, it follows that we have responsibilities associated with this position (it says this in this Bible). Robert Oppenheimer is given credit for being the man who developed the atomic bomb; yet he agonized over the possibilities of its use. He knew the tendency of belligerence of human beings. We have the ability to score higher on the intellectual plane; but we're just stuck on our present level of thinking and resolving problems. We seem to think that the answer lies in killing everything that moves! The philosophy of using weapons because we have them would certainly sanction the man who uses his personal 'tool' to rape and murder women (which is an epidemic in this country). You would say that you didn't mean that but your sweeping statement belies my point. However, I do agree with your statement that if everyone else has the bomb, including us, then Iran should be have access to it as well. We humans have to take responsibility for the creation of various types of mass destruction and if we perish by our creations, then this would be the consequence of being fools. NOTE TO BIPHYSICS: I think it rude and insensitive of you to post the President of the USA's photo at your comment site.....besides, I'm pretty sure that if either the president or Secret Service learned about it, both you and the Chronicle would be in trouble. It's misrepresentation whether it's done in fun or not.

Back to Top

Loading...