Howard Zinn ask's kerry not to be a war president.
Read Howard Zinn:What do we do now?:
I bring this up because I am unable to refute Zinn's logic; as dangerous as a full withdraw sounds, it seems to be a better option. Here's the snipet:
"In a recent piece in The Washington Post, Kerry talks about 'success' in military terms. 'If our military commanders request more troops we should deploy them.' He seems to think that if we 'internationalize' our disastrous policy, it becomes less of a disaster. 'We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq.' Is that what brings security--'boots on the ground'?
Kerry suggests: 'We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers.' More troops, more troops. And the U.S. must be in charge--that old notion that the world can trust our leadership--despite our long record of moral failure.
To those who worry about what will happen in Iraq after our troops leave, they should consider the effect of having foreign troops: continued, escalating bloodshed, continued insecurity, increased hatred for the United States in the entire Muslim world of over a billion people, and increased hostility everywhere.
The effect of that will be the exact opposite of what our political leaders--of both parties--claim they intend to achieve, a 'victory' over terrorism. When you inflame the anger of an entire population, you have enlarged the breeding ground for terrorism.
!!
What of the other long-term effects of continued occupation? I'm thinking of the poisoning of the moral fiber of our soldiers--being forced to kill, maim, imprison innocent people, becoming the pawns of an imperial power after they were deceived into believing they were fighting for freedom, democracy, against tyranny.
I'm thinking of the poisoning of the moral fiber of our soldiers--being forced to kill, maim, imprison innocent people, becoming the pawns of an imperial power after they were deceived into believing they were fighting for freedom, democracy, against tyranny.
And the costs of the war--the $400 billion military budget (which Kerry, shockingly, refuses to consider lowering)--make it inevitable that people in this country will suffer from lack of health care, a deteriorating school system, dirtier air and water. Corporate power is unregulated and running wild.
Kerry does not seem to understand that he is giving away his strongest card against Bush--the growing disillusion with the war among the American public. He thinks he is being clever, by saying he will wage the war better than Bush. But by declaring his continued support for the military occupation, he is climbing aboard a sinking ship.
We do not need another war President. We need a peace President. And those of us in this country who feel this way should make our desire known in the strongest of ways to the man who may be our next occupant of the White House.
I bring this up because I am unable to refute Zinn's logic; as dangerous as a full withdraw sounds, it seems to be a better option. Here's the snipet:
"In a recent piece in The Washington Post, Kerry talks about 'success' in military terms. 'If our military commanders request more troops we should deploy them.' He seems to think that if we 'internationalize' our disastrous policy, it becomes less of a disaster. 'We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq.' Is that what brings security--'boots on the ground'?
Kerry suggests: 'We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers.' More troops, more troops. And the U.S. must be in charge--that old notion that the world can trust our leadership--despite our long record of moral failure.
To those who worry about what will happen in Iraq after our troops leave, they should consider the effect of having foreign troops: continued, escalating bloodshed, continued insecurity, increased hatred for the United States in the entire Muslim world of over a billion people, and increased hostility everywhere.
The effect of that will be the exact opposite of what our political leaders--of both parties--claim they intend to achieve, a 'victory' over terrorism. When you inflame the anger of an entire population, you have enlarged the breeding ground for terrorism.
!
What of the other long-term effects of continued occupation? I'm thinking of the poisoning of the moral fiber of our soldiers--being forced to kill, maim, imprison innocent people, becoming the pawns of an imperial power after they were deceived into believing they were fighting for freedom, democracy, against tyranny.
I'm thinking of the poisoning of the moral fiber of our soldiers--being forced to kill, maim, imprison innocent people, becoming the pawns of an imperial power after they were deceived into believing they were fighting for freedom, democracy, against tyranny.
And the costs of the war--the $400 billion military budget (which Kerry, shockingly, refuses to consider lowering)--make it inevitable that people in this country will suffer from lack of health care, a deteriorating school system, dirtier air and water. Corporate power is unregulated and running wild.
Kerry does not seem to understand that he is giving away his strongest card against Bush--the growing disillusion with the war among the American public. He thinks he is being clever, by saying he will wage the war better than Bush. But by declaring his continued support for the military occupation, he is climbing aboard a sinking ship.
We do not need another war President. We need a peace President. And those of us in this country who feel this way should make our desire known in the strongest of ways to the man who may be our next occupant of the White House.
