A war is on; answer your nation's call

  • Follow Letters

To the disbelievers: Iraq's rulers did have weapons of mass destruction before the war began - some of which were empty food cans, while the biggest are (or were) as large as cement trucks. Others are buried under roads or runways. The devices were implanted starting immediately after Iraq's defeat by U.S. armed forces in 1991.

All the while the explosives are detonated by pressing down on the switch of a cell phone. Others are set off by members of their own population while walking to and from other places, with their families or out shopping - while vehicles move along streets, setting them off with deadly force as they rumble by. ...

Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress, and others who do not know better, have been getting the majority of backing. A majority fears the draft call.

In the past, U.S. folks of all abilities put down their hoes, rakes and plows to answer the call to arms. I was one of them, along with my older brother Walter, who served in the Pacific with the 111th Infantry.

Disenchanted nonbelievers, harken to the boy who put his finger in the hole of the dam. Think what would have happened if he had denied his responsibility?

John Reichel, Martinez

Comments (17) 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.
JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 03/03/07 - 05:54 am
0
0
The Japanese Navy attacked

The Japanese Navy attacked this country at Pearl Harbor, and Germany
declared war on us shortly thereafter. Iraq never attacked or
threatened this country. Furthermore, roadside bombs or what the
military refers to as Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are not
classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. WMD are nuclear, chemical,
or biological weapons. The United States invaded and occupies a
predominantly Arab and overwhelmingly Muslim nation at the heart of the
Arab and Muslim world WHICH NEVER ATTACKED OR THREATENED US. Apologists
for this war claim that President Bush was misled by bad intelligence.
I maintain that George W. Bush decided to go to war in Iraq shortly
after or even before the attacks on this country on 9/11/01 WHICH IRAQ
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH. What President Bush believed before March
18, 2003 when he ordered the U.S. military to invade Iraq is disputed,
but it is not disputed that the reason given for the U.S. invading Iraq
(that Saddam possessed WMD and was an imminent threat to this country)
proved wrong. The toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime, the disbanding
of the Iraq army, and the deBaathification of Iraq's gov't unleased a
civil war in Iraq we cannot control. Compounding the error of invading
Iraq by continuing an illegal occupation and continuing to wage an
unjust war in Iraq cannot correct Bush's initial error of going to war
under false pretense.

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 03/03/07 - 07:31 am
0
0
Mr. Cain, you truly sound

Mr. Cain, you truly sound like a broken record, every message you post is the same hatred for one person, GWB. While your initials may be JC, it would behoove you to remember you are not Him.

laking
0
Points
laking 03/03/07 - 08:11 am
0
0
Mgroothand, you truly sound

Mgroothand, you truly sound like a broken record, every message that's posted about this illegal war and the incompetency of this president, your response is the same hatred for anyone that disagee with you. "While your initials may be JC, it would behoove you to remember you are not Him" WHAT? Why don't you simply offer some insight to why you so vehemently disagree with Mr. Cain by refuting his points. Or can you? By-the-way, in the last poll about the Bush presidency, it puts him at 29% and falling. The diehard Bush lovers like you and others that read this far right newspaper are in such denial,
it borders on fanaticism.

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 03/03/07 - 09:31 am
0
0
laking: The only thing I am

laking: The only thing I am fanatical about is the love of my adopted country, America. Anytime someone, domestic or foreign, assails this land I get my back up. The continuous diatribe from Mr. Cain and persons like you is like a broken record, very annoying and now confrontational. The Iraq war is not illegal it was sanctioned by Congress based on knowledge we had at the time. Period. While I believe in dissent, I also believe in backing up our President in time of war. Divided we fall and UBL, Ahmadinejad et al are enjoying the hell out of our divisions.
As for polls, neither Bush nor I pay any attention to them. What counts is, or will be, is the next election. Lastly, I am not a diehard Bush lover, he has made many mistakes, he is human, not JC. I am now a diehard American who recognizes that.

Its me1
1
Points
Its me1 03/03/07 - 09:36 am
0
0
When it hits American soil,

When it hits American soil, disenchanted disbelievers may wish we had done more to stop the spread of terrorism and WMD.

Thank you, Mr. Reichel, for loving America enough to serve her.

intheknow
16
Points
intheknow 03/03/07 - 10:28 am
0
0
I do not think that Mr.

I do not think that Mr. Reichel is the only person to serve OUR country. I have served proudly but do not agree with Bush. Believe it or not, one can serve yet disagree with OUR president.

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 03/03/07 - 10:55 am
0
0
intheknow: What a ridiculous

intheknow: What a ridiculous comment. I bet you singlehandedly kept the Japanese or the North Koreans or the North Vietnamese or the Iraqi army out of North Dakota. Just as ridiculous. Mr. Reichel made an important point and it was not making war for the sake of war. What sane president would intentionally send men, and women, off to war? Please, let's not question Bush's sanity.

intheknow
16
Points
intheknow 03/03/07 - 11:06 am
0
0
I guess you did mgroothand.

I guess you did mgroothand. Where did I mentioned somewhere about Bush sanity? Because you have blind loyality to Mr. Bush do not expect me to have it. If you looked closely at what I said I served proudly but that does not mean I have to agree. Its called your right as an AMERICAN CITIZEN.

intheknow
16
Points
intheknow 03/03/07 - 11:11 am
0
0
No I did serve in World War

No I did serve in World War II or the Korean War. My Father did. No I did not serve in Vietnam. My 3 brothers did, with one being a P.O.W. . I did however, along with my Sister serve in the first Gulf War, along with the Rescue Mission to Iran and serveral other missions. I am also a Protective Services Agent with the government. So I do know about service to OUR country mgroothand.

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 03/03/07 - 11:26 am
0
0
intheknow: Re Bush's sanity,

intheknow: Re Bush's sanity, it was a preemptive statement. I salute you and your family for heeding the nation's call when asked or needed. I truly mean that. My only contribution to this nation is that I was in a position to employ many people< I always sought out military veterans. It made both of us feel good.

jack
11
Points
jack 03/03/07 - 11:26 am
0
0
To Cain and Laking, I find

To Cain and Laking, I find nothing "hateful" in Mcgroothand's response to Cain's usual anti-Bush diatribe that indeed sound like a broken record. Can either of you tell us what government organization has declared the Iraq war "illegal" (moveon.org doesn't count)? Didn't Congress authorize the invasion? Seems that there were not only a history of WMDs, but one of SH using them even against his own people, not to mention 12 years of SH thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors, ignoring the terms of surrender in 1991 and other justifiable reasons for GW Bush to decide to invade Iraq and depose SH. Your liberal use of the term "illegal" is nothing more than the usual leftist parroting of moveon.org.

intheknow
16
Points
intheknow 03/03/07 - 11:34 am
0
0
mgroothand I appreciate your

mgroothand I appreciate your comments but believe me my reward is in seeing formats like this one, where we can agree to disagree, yet remain cilvil about it. There is never anything wrong with a good debate about the important issues. I may not agree with our President all of the time but I have and will continue to defend him as our Commander and Chief.

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 03/03/07 - 11:37 am
0
0
If I were in the position,

If I were in the position, then your last line is exactly what I would ask of any American.

laking
0
Points
laking 03/03/07 - 01:20 pm
0
0
Jack, so you find nothing

Jack, so you find nothing hateful in Mgroothand's response to my
display. I suppose you can see plenty of hate in Mr. Cain's response to Mr. Reichel column. You NEOCONs frequently use the word "diatribe" to denounce the thought of those you disagree with. I find most of your responses both cursory and
and intellectually challenged when debating the real reasons of why 3000 of our bravest and finest have died in this war. This war had nothing to do with 911. It had to do with revenge and greed. Yes, a misinformed Republican Congress with the help of some Democrats authorized the war. Now many are backing off. Still doesn't make it right. All the reasons you gave:" Seems that there were not only a history of WMDs, but one of SH using them even against his own people, not to mention 12 years of SH thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors, ignoring the terms of surrender in 1991 and other justifiable reasons for GW Bush to decide to invade Iraq and depose SH".is Right Wing propaganda for the justification to invade Iraq since 911 didn't do it. And by-the-way, give your other justifiable reasons. I gave you mine. And I have never logged on to Moveon.org but apparently you have.

mgroothand
5
Points
mgroothand 03/03/07 - 01:40 pm
0
0
"It had to do with revenge

"It had to do with revenge and greed." Next I'll be reading you say that entering into this war was because GWB wanted this war for revenge on Sadam because he tried to kill his father in Kuwait and that we, the US, wanted all of Iraq's oil?

laking
0
Points
laking 03/03/07 - 02:41 pm
0
0
Mgroothand. Com'on, it is not

Mgroothand. Com'on, it is not unreasonable to assume this since GWB have said, "He tried to kill my daddy." And we don't want ALL of Iraq's oil, just enough to satify Cheney and his cohorts greed. Do you honestly think that the USA is not going to regret this war some way-some how? Billions spent. Much of it unaccountable. Many NEOCON investors are profiting from this war. Are you?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 03/03/07 - 09:04 pm
0
0
Rescinding the Bush

Rescinding the Bush Doctrine
By Andrew J. Bacevich | The Boston Globe - March 1, 2007
RATHER THAN vainly sniping at President Bush over his management of the
Iraq war, the Democratic-controlled Congress ought to focus on averting
any recurrence of this misadventure. Decrying the so-called "surge" or
curbing the president's authority to conduct ongoing operations will
contribute little to that end. Legislative action to foreswear
preventive war might contribute quite a lot. // Long viewed as immoral,
illicit, and imprudent, preventive war -- attacking to keep an
adversary from someday posing a danger -- became the centerpiece of US
national security strategy in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush
unveiled this new strategy in a speech at West Point in June 2002. "If
we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said, "we will have
waited too long." The new imperative was to strike before threats could
form. Bush declared it the policy of the United States to "impose
preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses." //
Although the Constitution endows the legislative branch with the sole
authority to declare war, the president did not consult Congress before
announcing his new policy. He promulgated the Bush Doctrine by fiat.
Then he acted on it. // In 2003, Saddam Hussein posed no immediate
threat to the United States; arguing that he might one day do so, the
administration depicted the invasion of Iraq as an act of anticipatory
self-defense. To their everlasting shame, a majority of members in both
the House and the Senate went along, passing a resolution that
"authorized" the president to do what he was clearly intent on doing
anyway. Implicitly, the Bush Doctrine received congressional
endorsement. // Events since have affirmed the wisdom of seeing
preventive war as immoral, illicit, and imprudent. The Bush
administration expected a quick, economical, and decisive victory in
Iraq. Advertising the war as an effort to topple a brutal dictator and
liberate an oppressed people, it no doubt counted on battlefield
success to endow the enterprise with a certain ex post facto
legitimacy. Elated Iraqis showering American soldiers with flowers and
candies would silence critics who condemned the war as morally
unjustified and patently illegal. // None of these expectations has come
to pass. In its trial run, the Bush Doctrine has been found wanting. //
Today, Iraq teeters on the brink of disintegration. The war's costs,
already staggering, continue to mount. Violence triggered by the US
invasion has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. We cannot fully
absolve ourselves of responsibility for those deaths. // Our folly has
alienated friends and emboldened enemies. Rather than nipping in the
bud an ostensibly emerging threat, the Iraq war has diverted attention
from existing dangers (such as Al Qaeda) while encouraging potential
adversaries (like Iran) to see us as weak. // The remedy to this
catastrophic failure lies not in having another go -- a preventive
attack against Iran, for example -- but in acknowledging that the Bush
Doctrine is inherently pernicious. Our reckless flirtation with
preventive war qualifies as not only wrong, but also stupid. Indeed,
the Bush Doctrine poses a greater danger to the United States than do
the perils it supposedly guards against. // We urgently need to abrogate
that doctrine in favor of principles that reflect our true interests
and our professed moral values. Here lies an opportunity for Congress
to make a difference. // The fifth anniversary of President Bush's West
Point speech approaches. Prior to that date, Democratic leaders should
offer a binding resolution that makes the following three points:
First, the United States categorically renounces preventive war.
Second, the United States will henceforth consider armed force to be an
instrument of last resort. Third, except in response to a direct attack
on the United States, any future use of force will require prior
Congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution. // The
legislation should state plainly our determination
to defend ourselves and our allies. But it should indicate no less
plainly that the United States no longer claims the prerogative of
using "preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it
chooses." // Declaring the Bush Doctrine defunct will not solve the
problems posed by Iraq, but it will reduce the likelihood that we will
see more Iraqs in our future. By taking such action, Congress will
restore its relevance, its badly tarnished honor, and its standing in
the eyes of the American people. // Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of
history and international relations at Boston University.

Back to Top
loading...
Top headlines

Christmas Eve rains to dry up

If Wednesday seemed particularly wet and dreary, you would be right. The day broke the record for the wettest Christmas Eve that Augusta has ever had.
Search Augusta jobs