I thought The Chronicle said it wasn't going to go there ("We're not going there," Nov. 17). I'm assuming that "going there," in today's slang, means attempting to pass judgment on the Marine who shot the unarmed, wounded, prostrate Iraqi. If that was your aim, you not only missed the mark and went there, but beyond.
First, you have used the popular trick of making a group out of diverse individuals for convenience's sake. It's easier to deal with them-against-us. You have lumped together all Iraqis who disagree with the American presence there into a monstrous enemy, a group of "little, armed rats" and "treacherous terrorists" in the "world's worst sewers," and all but said that whatever they get, they have it coming. Aren't at least some of these folks fighting against the invasion and occupation of their own sovereign country?
Second, what happened to the moral high ground that you and President Bush purport to champion? Can you pick and choose which morals you want to support? I don't think so. You can't be just a little moral - you either are or not. What if the United States had been invaded and occupied by a more powerful country that didn't like our leader and government, or thought we were a threat to them and we had resources they coveted? I wouldn't like it, and I'd like to think that I'd be characterized as a freedom fighter when I fought back.
We should ask why we are sending people halfway around the world and putting them in this horrible position. It's already been determined that the original reasons for invading Iraq were incorrect. It follows that anything else we do there will be incorrect.
Let's stop wasting lives and money for the sheer purpose of stubbornness.
Stephen Barrow, Aiken, S.C.