Why This Soldier Can’t Support This War
Dear Sirs:
Just as I heard the truth about Vietnam from veterans who were there, it is always refreshing to read an article like Justin Gordon’s. Wars built on lies, deceit, and greed will always fail and so will empires fall! I suggest that Mr. Gordon and others do what I am doing. I am an antiwar candidate for Congress (R) in Indiana’s sixth U.S. congressional district.
Because both political parties support this criminal carnage, to stop this war will take a new type of patriotism. That is, not only speaking out (talking the talk) but also becoming politically active as a candidate (walking the walk). Col. Karen Kwiatowski, Scott Ritter, Justin Gordon, and all the members of Iraq Veterans Against the War are the true patriots. I wish all well. I appreciate Dr. Paul Craig Roberts’ articles about the neocon influence on this great tragedy. Sadly, most Americans do not understand the ongoing tragic consequences of this war and occupation. My great fear is that if the U.S. does not leave Iraq and thus the Middle East, that eventually Israel, with its 200 nuclear warheads, will be the focus of an atomic Armageddon. Mr. Bush and Congress can’t say they weren’t warned about the tragic consequences of this war by General Zinni. The great tragedy which he predicted has come true. To all: please keep speaking out, we cannot afford to lose!
~ George Holland, a Christian, an Eisenhower Republican, USAF-NATO antiwar veteran
I can only hope more soldiers are informed and speak up as this one has. I did combat in Vietnam and was a proud Republican until the atrocity of “Shock and Awe.” Anyone who followed the news before the invasion could see Saddam had been castrated and contained. Even then, there was no evidence of Iraq’s involvement in 9/11. Every day the occupation continues is an atrocity!
Dear friends of peace,
I visit your Web site daily for news and commentary. However, I am witnessing with dismay your increasing attacks on people of different opinions. Neocons may be wrong, but that is not the point. They are addressed very pejoratively. Here is one of the more recent examples: “Then again, Bernard Henri-Levy is a moron. Worse, he is a demented quasi-philosopher who wants to remake Europe in Bosnia’s image.” Is that really necessary? Just because he offers a different opinion does not make him a “moron” or “demented.” Antiwar.com is in the process of losing serious credibility by becoming a platform for outrageous and disrespectful polemic attacks, not just on other people’s opinions, but also on their persons. This is very painful to witness, as I had looked to Antiwar.com as a site offering qualified counter-arguments to the war agenda. Please do not lose your integrity.
A Fellow Lover of Peace,
Nebojsa Malic replies:
Dear Withheld,
I believe my blog post has explained – if briefly – why I consider Bernard Henri-Levy a moron, and I even provide a link to a previous piece of mine in which I take BHL to task. “Moronic” and “demented” are to me appropriate descriptions of someone who believes Europe should be more like Bosnia, and that the neocons are not political enough. That is not an ad hominem, but very much an argument based on facts – or, to be particular, opinions and positions that BHL has expressed, and that subject to public criticism. Respect? I’ll respect him when he deserves it.
Just wanted to say this was your finest article in months. Actually one of the finest article by anybody, anywhere in months.
The constant single-root-cause harping (it’s all because of Israel, or an oil grab, or Haliburton’s profits, or Bush insanity and/or stupidity, or the Fabian Society, or Christian fundamentalism, or whatever else), although all at least semi-valid concerns, has to stop. It divides the opposition. The playing field needs more width. This is the way to go. Keep it up.
~ Erdal Türkler, Bonn, Germany
