Archive for Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Seeking peace

April 17, 2007

Advertisement

To the editor:

In the Lawrence Journal-World of April 10 there were two letters to the editor, one blaming Nancy Pelosi for her recent trip to the Middle East which had "no objective and nothing to accomplish other than to discredit Bush" and the other blaming a British Man of War that "stood by while a rogue nation's thugs stole its crew members from under their very guns, never firing a shot, abandoning them."

It is sad that such misinterpretations occur. The British crew members are now free, instead of the British having started a new war with Iran. Is that really so bad? And Nancy Pelosi, by the same token, has been trying to show that peaceful talks may be better than warfare. So is it wrong for those of us who believe that peaceful diplomacy is better than war to stand up and say so? Or should we just stand by and say nothing while thousands of our young men and women and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are killed or crippled? Stand by while our country continues to lose much of the love, admiration and respect our tourists encountered in most of the world not long ago?

Harry G. Shaffer,

Lawrence

Comments

temperance 8 years ago

A temper tantrum from Bush supporters doesn't mean she "stepped in it." Let it go. Keep parsing the Logan Act if it makes you feel better. Reread that Washington Post editorial if you need confirmation that your opinion is correct. But at least recognize that you're in the minority on this one, buddy.

"A Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,141 adults, conducted April 12-15, found that 58 percent trusted the Democrats in Congress to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, compared with 33 percent who trusted Bush." from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601099_pf.html

Curtiss 8 years ago

Trying to figure out exactly what point classclown is trying to make. Most recent posts (including today):

"British Man of War?"

"Has it been a month already?"

"Are you new here?"

"Will this be classified as a cold case?"

"Was that footage of KU last weekend?"

Since there seems to be no point to your posts, I'm led to the sad belief (suggested by your login name) that you said all these things purely in jest. Sad because you haven't said anything funny yet. If you've really dedicated your life to being the clown, the act needs a lot more work.

But if, on the other hand, you actually have an opinion, why don't you go ahead and express it? That's what this forum is for.

Jamesaust 8 years ago

One day Iranians held by the U.S. in Iraq are released and the next day British sailors held by Iran are released.

Coincidence? Or another American President trading for hostages?

The Iranians later wheelchaired-in before the cameras claiming that they were tortured by their American captors, showing their wounds. And who in the world didn't believe their claims at least plausible if not proof-positive?

guamku89 8 years ago

Agnostick! I agree with your 1st 9:36 post! I don't know if politicians know anything about efficiency. The only fairly convincing real or perceived threat we can use against the Iranians is for every terrorist act carried out against US interests either domestically or abroad, we blot out a city or military installation.

The US has been leaking that it's kidnapping revolutionary guard officers for several months. One, to mess w/the Iranians, Two, "fact finding". The US has gotten to people pretty high up in the guard heirarchy and this is freaking them out to say the least.

Additionally, the US has been in the process of a military build up in the Persian Gulf and on the Iran/Iraq border (not the 20k troops or whatever). The intended effect of this build up is to terrify the Iranians, Of course, it's then in place to blow stuff up should that be required.

So, the Iranians counter by kidnapping British sailors which is sort of a statement to the US saying they can jack w/ US supply lines in southern Iraq coming up from Kuwait. Also, kidnapping the British was safe for the Iranians. It probably played out about the way they hoped it would. They know better than to approach the US aggressively at sea. That would have turned into shooting and besides, there was no need to try. Their intent was to show the US they can cause problems in southern Iraq and they did.

This is all part of the diplomacy which is occurring between the two countries. There are those in each country who would say they shouldn't talk to each other. Rest assured they are. Diplomacy happens in many different ways.

Jamesaust, do you remember the images we saw of British sailors being held in Iran? Do you remember how different their captivity was than what was portrayed on Iranian state TV and other media? And yet, when the Iranians roll some guy out in a wheel chair and say he was tortured by Americans you believe them. Not so bright are you.

kneejerkreaction 8 years ago

Harry, Nancy P. simply overstepped the boundries of her effectiveness and played right into the hands of a nation with which we have officially cut ties. This was much to the delight of Syria and the chagrin of Bush. As much as one may hate Bush, you can't hate him more than the head of a country that openly harbors terrorists.

As for how American tourists are seen overseas, we've never been seen that well. Europeans see Americans as overbearing and without cultural depth, which is for the most part true. At the same time, most like individual Americans for their openness and what-you-see-is-what-you-get attitude. Intelligent people will understand you can't hate an entire population for the policy of their leaders.

Left_handed 8 years ago

Polls don't trump the constitution.

blackwalnut 8 years ago

The pathological hatred of America would be on the part of Bush & his criminal cronies who have destroyed the constitution and our democracy. It's all just spoils to be plundered, to that bunch.

Speakout 8 years ago

Right thinker, I have always had a patriotic strain in my blood, but to support what Bush has done would go against my patriotic strain. He has done more damage to the American people than any other president in our history. He is on parr with Lyndon Johnson and Andrew Johnson, in my opinion and a cut lower than the worst.

He has plundered America's most precious resource: Its people.

I was never in favor of Clinton's actions as a president, nor was I especially in awe of Bush #1, but they didn't do foolish things. After the events in Virginia Tech, I am surprized that we didn't lauch an attack on Korea, ordered by our president.

bearded_gnome 8 years ago

They also need to be respectful of those in the Executive and Judicial branches, and don't do too much "coloring outside their lines." --Aggie

finally an Aggie statement I can agree with. the biggest problem with Pelosi's trip was that she was trying to have her own foreign policy (as stated by her comrade Tom Lantos). her actions demonstrated a lack of concern for the safety and stability of Israel, since Syria's main terrorist efforts are against Israel. that's why we don't talk to them. when people say she communicated the same message as the administration, that's just amazing foolishness. our policy is not to talk, and she's talking.


"war of choice?" you've got the head of CIA (Clinton appointee) telling you its a "slamdunk" that Iraq has WMD's. you know they have missiles. any one in GWB's position would've done the same. when we invaded we did find [fact!] 250-tons of uranium in Iraq; not used for making glow-in-the-dark garden rocks.

Speakout 8 years ago

Yeah bearded gnome, you may be right, but remember when anyone attacks the Arab world, it isn't going to be easy. They didn't have tea and biscuits for the troops as was promised. The civil strife in Iraq has been their for hundreds of years. We unleashed a tiger from both sides.

Speakout 8 years ago

Yeah bearded gnome, you may be right, but remember when anyone attacks the Arab world, it isn't going to be easy. They didn't have tea and biscuits for the troops as was promised. The civil strife in Iraq has been theirs for hundreds of years. We unleashed a tiger from both sides.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.