Looking for an answer

Of course I didn't expect anyone to answer the question, at least without a lot of proding. But I was disappointed that my local congressman didn't respond after he promised to respond to all his constituents-shame-shame. Two predsidential candidates did respond and I will make separate posts about the talking points letters I received from them.

3/26/2007
To: Senator Mel Martinez, Senator Bill Nelson and Congressman Tim Mahoney.

From: Citizen (X)
I want to talk about the Iraq war but only as a prelude to the larger question: under what conditions should we invade another country if that country hasn't done something to justify an invasion (i.e. Pearl Harbor, 9-11). The implication is under what conditions we can say a specific government needs to be changed.
I am sending this letter to all my federal elective officials but I am also sending out letters to all the presidential candidates and every news outlet I can think of. I know someone is going to respond and I will print their letter at my website (www.hempictures.com) and send a copy of their response to the media. I'm not asking them to explain why they voted (the ones that did) or didn't vote for the war. I'm asking them to step up to the plate and at least pretend they are a statesman and put themselves on record by stating under what conditions we should be invading a county and what are the sacrifices the American people and not a small group of Americans(our soldiers and their families) have to pay for that invasion.
George Bush jr. and his neo con cronies were right about one thing, we can't let terrorists live in their little fantasy world to plots their stupid attacks on humanity like they were doing in Afghanistan. If you don't want someone leaving a suitcase nuke bomb in one of our major cities then you have to keep these guys on the run and fearful of someone pounding their door down at three in the morning. If George Bush jr. had been able to give enough resources to the Afghan war because he didn't invade Iraq, Bin Laden would have been dead by now and a lot of the people involved in heroin would have had to find a new source for smack. Yes, there still would have been terrorists still plotting to kill Americans but on a lower level and the terrorists leaders would absolutely know that if they went too far America would go after them and the country that harbored them.
One could go on and on about how George Bush jr. invaded a country under fall pretenses and mismanaged the war to such extents that the only choices left are horrible or bad. Yes, jr. helped make the Iranians the big power in the area. Was that his definition of victory in Iraq? After the Gulf war when Bush Sr. got a lot Iraq's killed by urging a regime chance and doing nothing to help the Iraq's the Iranians also sat back and let their fellow Shiite brothers get slaughtered, nobody has asked the question why. Surely at that point the Iranians could have easily toppled Saddam's government and would have had a justified reason for taking action. Something to think about as our soldier’s die over there.
When we leave as we most certainly will before the 2008 presidential elections the Shiites will get their revenge and wipe out a huge chunk of the Sunnis after they kick out all of the international news outfits. Forget about moderate Shiites saving the Sunnis, thanks to Jr., most of the moderates are either dead or have left the country. The only people left in Iraq are the fearful and the people they fear. Nobody is going to mess with the Shiites because again thanks to Jr., their Iranians buddies will be the big power in the area because we put the Shiites in power when we got rid of Saddam. I don’t think it is a coincidence that most of the Shiite leaders lived in exile in Iran during Saddam’s time in power. But that is nothing compared to a terrorist religious leader (do you know who?) who according to news reports gets his funding from Iran and has several of his people in the government.
In the end Iraq will become a partitioned country with the Shiites dependent on Iran, the Sunnis dependent on Syria and Saudi Arabia and the Kurds dependent on the United States. The Shiites will get the oil in the south, the Kurds will get the oil in the north and the Sunnis will get to know the Arab version of a popular expression that explains how the world works: Payback is a bitch baby. Yes, oil is the only thing we the Iraqi government, the insurgent and the terrorists consider sacred. Ever wonder why those nutty terrorists haven’t destroyed the oil fields. I only have a superficial knowledge of world affairs so if I can grasp the fact that the Shiites are never going to give the Sunnis nothing more than impotent power because of what the Sunnis in power did to them why couldn't the Bush jr. administration know what was going to happen? This is another county the Europeans created and profited on and we tried to do the same thing only to be stuck with the mess. Both the Republicans and Democrats are trying to blame each other for this disaster. In a moral world anybody who voted for or instigated this mess should have fallen on their sword for going along with what they probably knew was wrong. You don't need to be a big time Harvard political analyst to know what was going to happen. The average citizen doesn’t pay attention to these things until it is too late, that is why we pay taxes to support a government that does.
Certainly one book could never explain what George Bush Jr. has done to our country by invading Iraq. No it would take a "Lord of the Rings" trilogy to explain that. The world will probably never know why Jr. invaded Iraq. The frightening thing is it may be only because Saddam Hussein tried to have his father assassinated. Aside from the soldiers who died or became mentally or physically destroyed and the families who had to share the sorrows and burden of such a useless war we have all the people who George Bush jr. made fools of: specifically his own party and yes, thanks to George Bush jr. and their own stupidity the Republican party is now going to assume its' rightful place in politics as a second tier party- yes the rich and the loony's on the religious right need someone to represent them. Let's also not forget the media who climbed into bed(Oh I meant to say imbedded.) with the President in order to boost their ratings and the various world leaders who climbed on the George Bush jr. freedom express and who are now or going to be forgettable footnotes to their countries history. And don't forget the Democrat party, whose bumbling and lack of leadership skills let him get elected both times. And lastly don't forget the American people who believed a used car salesman only years later to find out they brought a lemon. And yes, I have to live with the fact that even though I didn't vote for jr. either time, the second time I knew what direction he was taken the country and I should have done something to see he didn't get reelected. Nobody wants to say thousands of lives from the best army in the world have been wasted in a venture as futile as “The Charge of the Light Brigade”, at a cost of billions of dollars thrown down a sinkhole of corruption, but I ask you: what has the average citizen gotten out of this adventure. "Mission Accomplished", I don't think so.
Iraq is only one misadventure out of many others. I ask what the average citizen has gotten out of all these invasions. I remember the Vietnam War when our leaders gave us the domino theory: if we don't stop them in Vietnam those bloodthirsty and godless commies are going to start landing on the shores of California. Yes, over 50,000 of our soldiers died and millions more lives were destroyed and I am still waiting for those godless commies to invade our shores. Some of our exalted leaders say there is no connection between Vietnam and the Iraq war. If they were in Vietnam like congressman Murtha instead of using political connections and money to keep them home safe and sound, they would have seen a connection and realized we had no business then as well as now to be in the middle of a civil war unless we want to turn the place into a parking lot. I didn't go to Vietnam because I enlisted in the Army when I became 18 and was out before the buildup began. Because the draft was in effect and we didn't have an all volunteer army for leaders of the free world to use as mercenaries, I didn't have to worry about some clever official like Rumsfield (Remember how brilliant our government told us he was and how lucky we were to have him as secretary of war.) back door drafting me to Vietnam a couple of years later. If that had happened there is a good chance this letter wouldn’t be written because I would be dead. I know rich people always make a lot of money from these types of wars, but what does the average citizen get out of other people having their lives destroyed? I would certainly like our elected officials to answer that question with clear and concrete facts I can understand. I am not a graduate of a privileged private school so vague concepts like fighting over there instead of here which can’t be proven either way are beyond my limited understanding of the world.
Remember sending troops to Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia, Vietnam, Kuwait and South Korea (All right maybe not South Korea; I was able to buy a Hyundai). Remember not sending troops to Iran, Syria, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and most importantly Sudan and Rwanda. Why did we put our forces in one country but not another country and who really benefited by all this activity, surely it wasn't the average citizen.
I believe there has to be a point where we shouldn't tolerate what a country is doing. In short if a country is doing one of the things listed below than a regime change or new direction for that regime is needed. Unlike our political leadership (both parties) I don't see any benefits to being the leaders of the free world and the world's only remaining superpower. I also believe America shouldn't be the world's police force. Right now our forces are all over the world. And I would certainly like to know, how many, where and most importantly-why. What are we going to do if North Korea decides this is the best time to invade South Korea?
The answer to that question and when to invade another country won’t be answered by the United States alone. No, sad to say, these questions won’t be answered until Russia and China get a little more democracy and stop following policies that are shortsighted but won't benefit them in the long run. I would even go further, let the Chinese become the world leaders, let them send in the troops and let their troops get killed or have their lives destroyed, let the rest of the world hate them. Urge them to build a world trade center so some terrorists can blow it up. The Chinese along with the rest of the world have gotten a free ride because they have been content to play back seat driver and let us play leader of the free world, let someone else lead. I am sure our average citizen can see some benefit to that.
Eventually the Chinese along with the Russians are going to realize that if they don't want someone leaving a suitcase nuke bomb in one of their cities then at least for some of the things listen below they are going to assume responsibility and put their soldiers at risk. As we have found out in Iraq only the most powerful countries working together can put enough forces into a country to achieve their objectives. Invading a country is ugly business not a Bush jr. PR event, first you crush them then you build them up, in-between a lot of people get killed or thrown in prison. I'm not saying force our style of democracy to a country. I am saying keep doing any of the things listed below and there will be a regime change. I realize there are a lot of other nasty things a country can do to its’ citizens but those listed below are the things that will affect another country and/or are things that shouldn’t be tolerated. It is one thing to say a country is doing something bad and it is another to say we will sacrifice our soldiers and do something about it. All the things listed below are equally important:
1. We will not tolerate a country that slaughters their citizens such as happened in Sudan and Rwanda. I think we have reached the point when we shouldn't tolerate that type of behavior. If Bush had sent the troops into Sudan most Americans would have backed him and would have understood the reason for sending in troops. But he didn’t, I guess Sudan doesn't have oil and poor rural people being slaughtered don’t generate much PR. It is much easier to hide behind a useless organization like the UN. It would be interesting if someone could add up the amount of press time given to Anna Nicole Smith and compare that with the amount of time given to Darfur. If it wasn't for people like George Clooney the amount of coverage would be even less.
2. We will not tolerate a country that harbors terrorists (Afghanistan, Pakistan) or supplies money and support to them (Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran). Unfortunately terrorists won't leave us alone. We can't afford to let them have their little fantasy world where they can train and live the good life in-between killing women and children. The Bush jr. group was also right about another thing: doing nothing while the terrorists killed our soldiers, kidnaps our civilians and blew up our buildings did not encourage them to achieve their aims through the political process. When we invaded Afghanistan they finally got the message. Our leaders like to tell us we haven’t had a large scale terrorist attack because we invaded Iraq. If most of the terrorists’ leaders who attacked us were in Afghanistan, shouldn’t that be the main reason?
3. We will not tolerate another country that decides to develop nuclear power as a weapon. Countries that already have nuclear power as a weapon, including the United States, have to be monitored. Terrorists leaders aren't concerned with how many people they kill they are only concerned with their own safety. If they get their hands on a suitcase nuke bomb they will use it if they think they can get away with it. Don't ever confuse them with the morons charged with exploding the bomb. And it doesn’t take much brainpower to figure out that any scumbag country that thinks they can get away with it will supply those terrorists with a nuke bomb.
4. We will not tolerate countries (Afghanistan, Columbia, Mexico) that either won't or can't stop the exporting of drugs to any country. It's not only that drugs are evil, but the other stuff that goes with it such as supporting corruption, terrorists activities, murder and the collapse of a society are just wrong. We have a lot of people in this country that buy and sell drugs and we need to change people and our culture of addiction or put them in jail, but first we need to go after those countries that make their living from our weakness.
None of these things will take place until China and Russia change; while we are waiting we need to put our money into protecting ourselves. A secure border would be a good start. Until then let some other country put their troops at risk around the world. Maybe if someone told me in concrete provable facts why we need to be the only world police then maybe I will change my tune. I see rich companies like Halliburton and energy producers making money, but what has the average citizen made out of our government’s policies. Getting cheap clothes made by slave labor in China and other places doesn't compensate for destroying our manufacturing base and with that most of our middle class. I think the average citizen who has to work for a living understands in a very personal way the end result of such policies.
Citizen (X) is very interested in what you have to say.
Richard Hemingway. Web site: www.22fishermanswharf.com
Email: richard@hempictures.com