The Last Letter

[Luddly Neddite]

Truthdig - The Last Letter

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Well worth reading his entire letter, as well as the accompanying links.

After Vietnam, we said we would learn from that fiasco. We have said the same thing about every idiotic war since then but we never learn. Now the right is wanting to make war on Iran.

Will we ever learn that the real enemy is war itself?

 

[Circe]

After Vietnam, we said we would learn from that fiasco. We have said the same thing about every idiotic war since then but we never learn. Now the right is wanting to make war on Iran.

Will we ever learn that the real enemy is war itself?

I have come to think that the real goal of diplomacy is postponing war. Indefinitely. Because very often it becomes unnecessary if one waits long enough: Iran or North Korea may very well collapse as Soviet Russia did.

Also, I have noticed that the country that starts an aggressive war usually loses. Germany, both times; and the U.S. in Vietnam. Whereas the country that reacts defensively usually wins -- the U.S. in WWs I and II, and the first Iraq War when Saddam moved on Kuwait and "our" oil supplies. That Iraq War was defensive and we won hands down; the second one was offensive and we lost and took forever losing, too.

Reacting to sudden aggressive moves works --- war only if there is "clear and present danger." But starting aggressive wars gets the whole world against that country: they gang up, as the world opposed Germany, because they see the aggressor as a rabid dog that has to be put down. This is not a good way to be viewed by a lot of countries at once.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I have come to think that the real goal of diplomacy is postponing war. Indefinitely. Because very often it becomes unnecessary if one waits long enough: Iran or North Korea may very well collapse as Soviet Russia did.

Exactly.

Its very easy to look back at Vietnam, the Gulf "war", Kuwait and know that it was not necessary to make war on those countries. It has cost us more in money and, much more importantly, human lives, enormous human suffering and has gained us nothing.

And, you're right that we lost. In every way, we lost. We haven't fought a real war since WWII. And now all we seem to care about is oil.

If we fought wars for humanitarian reasons, we would care abut Afghan women and children but nope - all we care about is oil.

 

[Circe]

And now all we seem to care about is oil.

If we fought wars for humanitarian reasons, we would care abut Afghan women and children but nope - all we care about is oil.

I'm okay with fighting for oil --- that really is a national interest. We do have to have oil to retain our lives as they are. You may be willing to live more simply, but I like things as they are.

Fighting for ideas as in Vietnam or Iraq II, however, never has worked out for us. We lose. Also fighting for other people entirely --- for instance Israel wanting us to fight a war with Iran for them --- that's just silly. What's the upside?

Israel needs to do its own warfighting if they see a clear and present danger. Unless Iran marches on Saudi Arabia (and "our" oil), it simply doesn't involve us.

I'm okay with war as a defense: when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on us the same week, well, that was a clear and present danger! Of course, going into Afghanistan after bin Laden when he bombed New York was also a clear and present danger. The mistake was to stay after Tora Bora when we KNEW he wasn't there any longer.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And now all we seem to care about is oil.

If we fought wars for humanitarian reasons, we would care abut Afghan women and children but nope - all we care about is oil.

I'm okay with fighting for oil --- that really is a national interest. I can't agree. We need to work toward not needing oil. We were able to go from horses to cars and we should be able to go from (oil-run) cars to any of several other energy sources. In the meantime, we should be copying Europe by relying more on trains annd less on personal cars. Americans have this mind set that we're nothing without our gas guzzlers and its killing us. We do have to have oil to retain our lives as they are. You may be willing to live more simply,When we visit big cities we love using the Zip Cars. Very smart/cheap alternative to owning a car. And very convenient. But, we live in two homes,, constant back and forth. So, we use high mileage cars, don't eat meat (the worst polluter and does the most damage to our country and the earth) ad recycle everything. but I like things as they are.

Fighting for ideas as in Vietnam or Iraq II, however, never has worked out for us. We lose. Also fighting for other people entirely --- for instance Israel wanting us to fight a war with Iran for them --- that's just silly. What's the upside?I agree with the president that Israel needs to fight some of their own battles instead of us fighting for them. We dont' need another war and I'm in favor of using drones, with, as Ive said before, oversight.

Israel needs to do its own warfighting if they see a clear and present danger. Unless Iran marches on Saudi Arabia (and "our" oil), it simply doesn't involve us.

I'm okay with war as a defense: when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on us the same week, well, that was a clear and present danger! Of course, going into Afghanistan after bin LadenExcept that we didn't do that. We went to iraq and murdered an entire country and culture. Inexcusable. when he bombed New York was also a clear and present danger. The mistake was to stay after Tora Bora when we KNEW he wasn't there any longer.

Thank you for treating this as a serious conversation.

That brave vet's letter was like daggers to my heart. We MUST stop making war on others AND on our own people.

 

[Circe]

We need to work toward not needing oil. We were able to go from horses to cars and we should be able to go from (oil-run) cars to any of several other energy sources. In the meantime, we should be copying Europe by relying more on trains annd less on personal cars. Americans have this mind set that we're nothing without our gas guzzlers and its killing us.

Well....it's killing some soldiers, I suppose. Europe is very different, far more populated and able to use public transport, the distances much less. I remember some Germans here saying that this country needed to be concentrated! I thought Germany needed to be diluted. I don't think this country can ever give up private transport: the distances even where I live are just huge, nothing is walkable except in Boston or New York. And also Europe USED to be homogeneous: there were no bad neighborhoods full of dangerous "others," but there are here. Of course, that's changing there, too. I remember several Americans had to BEG this German boy not to bicycle to a lab through downtown Baltimore: he'd have been killed outright. He simply didn't believe us, but fortunately he finally realized we were serious.
Still, you are right that we made the shift from horse transport, as all the world did except the people using donkeys, and so there is no reason we couldn't make another shift as soon as real oil-free transport becomes available. Since we have just now overturned Gutenberg's moveable type after 500 years, I believe we may have a breakthru in transport, too. Why not? That would be so great.

I agree with the president that Israel needs to fight some of their own battles instead of us fighting for them. We dont' need another war and I'm in favor of using drones, with, as Ive said before, oversight.

Yes! Now THERE is a Gutenberg-like technological revolution. It's on the order of the fighting robots in the Star Wars movies, really. I'm wildly in favor of drones. With, as you say, oversight. I like them for policing, too, but I realize that is controversial.

Except that we didn't [go into Afghanistan after bin Laden]. We went to iraq and murdered an entire country and culture. Inexcusable.

Yes, well, that certainly didn't work out and has changed a lot of my thinking toward your point of view that war is best to avoid if at all possible, and that was possible to avoid. My life has been a trek through stupid wars we should have avoided and that were utterly pointless and that we LOST: Korea, Vietnam, Serbia even, Iraq II, the too-long stay in Afghanistan. Whenever we have made aggressive war, we have lost. Defensive wars, we win. I now think we should stick entirely to defensive wars, clear and present danger to us and our important national interests. And fight to win, not to establish a base and run the country for them.

 

[The Rabbi]

The guy who wrote the letter deserves whatever horrible death he gets.

 

[jwoodie]

Truthdig - The Last Letter

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Well worth reading his entire letter, as well as the accompanying links.

After Vietnam, we said we would learn from that fiasco. We have said the same thing about every idiotic war since then but we never learn. Now the right is wanting to make war on Iran.

Will we ever learn that the real enemy is war itself?

Why should his political rant be given any more credibility than anyone else's? War should always be a last resort, but even then it should only be waged with clearly delineated military objectives. Once those are established, politicians should get out of the way and let the military do its job. Unfortunately, the urge to "play soldier" seems irresistible to those with little or no military experience.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why would he have any credence when the first few sentences are outright lies?

BTW – the cries about how the right is ‘warlike’ is utter bullshit. Tell me, how has the left done with the latest round of war? I guess that it is now okay because we are bombing other nations and paying others to fight so that Americans are not dying…

That is unacceptable. We need to stop the killing.

 

[Circe]

Why would he have any credence when the first few sentences are outright lies?

BTW – the cries about how the right is ‘warlike’ is utter bullshit. Tell me, how has the left done with the latest round of war? I guess that it is now okay because we are bombing other nations and paying others to fight so that Americans are not dying…

That is unacceptable. We need to stop the killing.

At the moment the right is certainly advocating war on:

Iran

North Korea

Stay forever in Afghanistan



I have come to think the right never saw a war it didn't love, at least in prospect. The neo-cons who are pro-Israel are the worst: Bill Kristol and Co. I love the Wall Street Journal, but I don't love its regular op-eds on how Obama ought to go to war here, there, and everywhere.

At the very least all these wars have led to our horrific deficit, as wars always, always do, for centuries and millennia past, and now present. And what good did we get out of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan?

Nothing at all.

 

[whitehall]

If he is really a Vet. he needs psychological counseling and it is available from the V.A. Why doesn't he direct his letter to the current president? We still have Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan taking fire and being blown up with IED's. For a historical comparison the US Marines lost about 6,000 KIA in a battle for a stinking island that could have been bypassed four months before the end of WW2 and I don't recall a single Marine sending a letter to Harry Truman. Truman's mismanagement of the Korean conflict turned victory at a cost of about 5,000 Troops in less than a year into a three year struggle at a cost of anywhere from 38,000 to 50,000 Troops and a humiliating truce that we are still living with and I don't recall a single Soldier or Marine complaining about the injustice of coping with his wounds.

 

[jwoodie]

Why would he have any credence when the first few sentences are outright lies?

BTW – the cries about how the right is ‘warlike’ is utter bullshit. Tell me, how has the left done with the latest round of war? I guess that it is now okay because we are bombing other nations and paying others to fight so that Americans are not dying…

That is unacceptable. We need to stop the killing.

At the moment the right is certainly advocating war on:

Iran

North Korea

Stay forever in Afghanistan



I have come to think the right never saw a war it didn't love, at least in prospect. The neo-cons who are pro-Israel are the worst: Bill Kristol and Co. I love the Wall Street Journal, but I don't love its regular op-eds on how Obama ought to go to war here, there, and everywhere.

At the very least all these wars have led to our horrific deficit, as wars always, always do, for centuries and millennia past, and now present. And what good did we get out of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan?

Nothing at all.

Well, you just exploded your pretense of clean debate. Apparently "the right" is responsible for all bad wars, even when started by Democratic presidents? (As I recall, the Viet Nam War was started when that party controlled all the branches of our government.)

Also, your simplistic view of "war" is both ignorant and childish: Where do peace keeping missions, embargoes, cyber attacks and drones fit in? Are they OK as long as the right terminology is used and you don't have to watch the results on TV? What about preventing genocide? Should we just try to buy off murderous regimes instead?

It is much easier to express what you are against than it is to explain what you are for.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

If he is really a Vet. he needs psychological counseling and it is available from the V.A. Why doesn't he direct his letter to the current president? We still have Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan taking fire and being blown up with IED's. For a historical comparison the US Marines lost about 6,000 KIA in a battle for a stinking island that could have been bypassed four months before the end of WW2 and I don't recall a single Marine sending a letter to Harry Truman. Truman's mismanagement of the Korean conflict turned victory at a cost of about 5,000 Troops in less than a year into a three year struggle at a cost of anywhere from 38,000 to 50,000 Troops and a humiliating truce that we are still living with and I don't recall a single Soldier or Marine complaining about the injustice of coping with his wounds.

Words that mean less have never been written. Plenty of complaints were written in every war literate soldiers ever fought.

 

[numan]

That brave vet's letter was like daggers to my heart. We MUST stop making war on others AND on our own people.

Yes, very moving words -- and perfectly useless.

Sub-human filth like Bush and Cheney are only concerned with making money out of war and human misery and the destruction of the American nation.

They will read the vet's words and laugh all the way to the bank.

The only thing that would have an effect on such scum would be very slowly to torture them to death on a world-wide television hook-up.
.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why would he have any credence when the first few sentences are outright lies?

BTW – the cries about how the right is ‘warlike’ is utter bullshit. Tell me, how has the left done with the latest round of war? I guess that it is now okay because we are bombing other nations and paying others to fight so that Americans are not dying…

That is unacceptable. We need to stop the killing.

At the moment the right is certainly advocating war on:

Iran

North Korea

Stay forever in Afghanistan



I have come to think the right never saw a war it didn't love, at least in prospect. The neo-cons who are pro-Israel are the worst: Bill Kristol and Co. I love the Wall Street Journal, but I don't love its regular op-eds on how Obama ought to go to war here, there, and everywhere.

At the very least all these wars have led to our horrific deficit, as wars always, always do, for centuries and millennia past, and now present. And what good did we get out of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan?

Nothing at all.

Well, you just exploded your pretense of clean debate. Apparently "the right" is responsible for all bad wars, even when started by Democratic presidents? (As I recall, the Viet Nam War was started when that party controlled all the branches of our government.)

Also, your simplistic view of "war" is both ignorant and childish: Where do peace keeping missions, embargoes, cyber attacks and drones fit in? Are they OK as long as the right terminology is used and you don't have to watch the results on TV? What about preventing genocide? Should we just try to buy off murderous regimes instead?

It is much easier to express what you are against than it is to explain what you are for.

That’s the real rub here. A common attack against the right is that it ‘loves’ war but the reality of the situation is that BOTH parties love war. We have been in a state of constant war for over a decade and democrat control has done nothing to change that. As a matter of fact, it has expanded and the future holds only prospects of more war. The American people are becoming used to this fact and as long as they don’t see Americans killed and in a ground war they seem all right with it.

News flash – it the same thing. Bombing people has the same reproductions as shooting them and we are not going to be getting anything good with the ‘new’ way we view war.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

At the moment the right is certainly advocating war on:

Iran

North Korea

Stay forever in Afghanistan



I have come to think the right never saw a war it didn't love, at least in prospect. The neo-cons who are pro-Israel are the worst: Bill Kristol and Co. I love the Wall Street Journal, but I don't love its regular op-eds on how Obama ought to go to war here, there, and everywhere.

At the very least all these wars have led to our horrific deficit, as wars always, always do, for centuries and millennia past, and now present. And what good did we get out of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan?

Nothing at all.

Well, you just exploded your pretense of clean debate. Apparently "the right" is responsible for all bad wars, even when started by Democratic presidents? (As I recall, the Viet Nam War was started when that party controlled all the branches of our government.)

Also, your simplistic view of "war" is both ignorant and childish: Where do peace keeping missions, embargoes, cyber attacks and drones fit in? Are they OK as long as the right terminology is used and you don't have to watch the results on TV? What about preventing genocide? Should we just try to buy off murderous regimes instead?

It is much easier to express what you are against than it is to explain what you are for.

That’s the real rub here. A common attack against the right is that it ‘loves’ war but the reality of the situation is that BOTH parties love war. We have been in a state of constant war for over a decade and democrat control has done nothing to change that. As a matter of fact, it has expanded and the future holds only prospects of more war. The American people are becoming used to this fact and as long as they don’t see Americans killed and in a ground war they seem all right with it.

News flash – it the same thing. Bombing people has the same reproductions as shooting them and we are not going to be getting anything good with the ‘new’ way we view war.

I agree. That's why Bush kept the media fro showing videos/photos of anything that would show the true horror of Iraq AND how completely worthless that war was.

The only thing that has changed, the only thing that has been done to lessen the cost in both lives and money is Obama's increased use of drones.

And the right can't stop screaming about it.

They were okay with $Trillions of dollars being added to our debt and they were just fine with hundreds of thousands of deaths and wounds/maiming beyond out comprehension but, because its Obama, they are against fewer collateral deaths and a lower price tag. They are even against the killing of bin laden!

The right says we should stop blaming the bush years for the huge debt but we will be be paying for his ego and stupidity for a long long time.

A little over 10 years ago, George W. Bush fired his economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, for saying that the total cost of invading Iraq might come to as much as $200 billion. Bush instead stood by such advisers as Paul Wolfowitz, who said that the invasion would be largely "self-financing" via Iraq's oil, and Andrew Natsios, who told an incredulous Ted Koppel that the war's total cost to the American taxpayer would be no more than $1.7 billion.

As it turns out, Lawrence Lindsey's estimate was indeed off -- by a factor of 10 or more, on the low side. A new research paper by Linda Bilmes, of the Kennedy School at Harvard, begins this way:

The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US history -- totaling somewhere between $4 to $6 trillion.

Paying the Costs of Iraq, for Decades to Come - James Fallows - The Atlantic

Given the choice, I will always choose drones but, what we should be working for is a war-free war and again, Obama is leading the way with diplomacy.

 

[jwoodie]

Well, you just exploded your pretense of clean debate. Apparently "the right" is responsible for all bad wars, even when started by Democratic presidents? (As I recall, the Viet Nam War was started when that party controlled all the branches of our government.)

Also, your simplistic view of "war" is both ignorant and childish: Where do peace keeping missions, embargoes, cyber attacks and drones fit in? Are they OK as long as the right terminology is used and you don't have to watch the results on TV? What about preventing genocide? Should we just try to buy off murderous regimes instead?

It is much easier to express what you are against than it is to explain what you are for.

That’s the real rub here. A common attack against the right is that it ‘loves’ war but the reality of the situation is that BOTH parties love war. We have been in a state of constant war for over a decade and democrat control has done nothing to change that. As a matter of fact, it has expanded and the future holds only prospects of more war. The American people are becoming used to this fact and as long as they don’t see Americans killed and in a ground war they seem all right with it.

News flash – it the same thing. Bombing people has the same reproductions as shooting them and we are not going to be getting anything good with the ‘new’ way we view war.

I agree. That's why Bush kept the media fro showing videos/photos of anything that would show the true horror of Iraq AND how completely worthless that war was.

The only thing that has changed, the only thing that has been done to lessen the cost in both lives and money is Obama's increased use of drones.

And the right can't stop screaming about it.

They were okay with $Trillions of dollars being added to our debt and they were just fine with hundreds of thousands of deaths and wounds/maiming beyond out comprehension but, because its Obama, they are against fewer collateral deaths and a lower price tag. They are even against the killing of bin laden!

The right says we should stop blaming the bush years for the huge debt but we will be be paying for his ego and stupidity for a long long time.

A little over 10 years ago, George W. Bush fired his economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, for saying that the total cost of invading Iraq might come to as much as $200 billion. Bush instead stood by such advisers as Paul Wolfowitz, who said that the invasion would be largely "self-financing" via Iraq's oil, and Andrew Natsios, who told an incredulous Ted Koppel that the war's total cost to the American taxpayer would be no more than $1.7 billion.

As it turns out, Lawrence Lindsey's estimate was indeed off -- by a factor of 10 or more, on the low side. A new research paper by Linda Bilmes, of the Kennedy School at Harvard, begins this way:

The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US history -- totaling somewhere between $4 to $6 trillion.

Paying the Costs of Iraq, for Decades to Come - James Fallows - The Atlantic

I would like to congratulate you on finally coming to your senses and acknowledging that we have a debt problem.