Blind patriotism
It frightens me to read statements like that of the second lieutenant who wrote the letter “Symbol of war” (Feb. 26). He said, “My commander in chief should not have to justify why, where or when we go to war.” That is exactly what most of the officers and soldiers of the Third Reich did not do. We saw the results of such blind and emotional patriotism.
Patriotism out of pure emotion and without reflection on the ideals upon which our country was founded is destructive to the fiber of our society. It tore our nation apart during the Vietnam War, and it may do so again in the current Iraq war.
Hopefully the letter writer will also achieve this wisdom while progressing through the ranks, as did many of we Vietnam-era veterans before, during, and after that horrible war. I always urge fellow patriots to walk along the Vietnam Veterans Memorial when they visit Washington, D.C. They should read the endless names and then ask whether or not our commander in chief needs to justify his actions.
Maj. Klaus-D. Paul (Ret.)
Kaiserslautern, Germany
Use own weapon downrange?
The writer of “Ill-fitting weapons” (Feb. 19) wants to be able to use his own weapon in Kuwait? Does he think this is the period from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War when soldiers used to melt down lead for ball projectiles? Has the writer forgotten about the history and logistics of supplying ammunition for different personal weapons? I think he’s watched Mel Gibson’s “The Patriot” too many times. I’m surprised the writer isn’t proposing tomahawks.
In my 17 years in the military, I’ve never heard of a part of the weapon he described as a “comb.” I even asked country boys, and they had no idea what a comb is. The writer said he’s concerned about shooting straight. While the M-16 has its share of problems, isn’t it one of the most accurate weapons? The writer also said he wouldn’t mind losing his $3,000 weapon in combat. I think he’s losing his mind. The writer went on and on about the stock. Oh wait. He used the proper terminology: buttstock. Maybe the writer’s first sergeant could give him permission to bring his own weapon, or his commander could authorize reimbursment for ammunition.
The writer is located at Camp Wolverine, Kuwait, which is as rear as one can get and still draw combat pay. We don’t even carry weapons this far in the rear. I can see why the writer is concerned with his length of pull. Obviously the writer is pulling out his hair concerning himself with this high-level issue. Maybe he should pull the comb out of his buttstock and comb whatever hair he has left.
Capt. Danny Vallone
Camp Virginia, Kuwait
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=20766Bigger problems
This is in response to the letter “Ill-fitting weapons” (Feb. 19). Was the letter really out of concern for the biggest problem of the war so far — ill-fitting weapons? Or was it for the writer to tell the entire southwest Asian theater of operations that he knows terms like “comb” and “heel” and “length of pull”? Perhaps it was a forum to let everyone in the world know that the writer owns a $2,000-$3,000 weapon.
Perhaps we could let everyone bring their own weapons to Iraq, as the writer suggested, and Wal-Mart could donate the various types and calibers of ammunition that we’d need. Maybe I could have my own privately owned vehicle here as well. I find Humvees kind of uncomfortable.
Perhaps if the writer spent as much time practicing primary marksmanship instruction as he did sending a letter to the editor, he wouldn’t have a problem with his ill-fitting weapon. If a supposedly ill-fitting weapon that no one else has ever brought up is the writer’s biggest complaint, then he should come up to Iraq. He should go a year without a nice bed to sleep in. He should spend a summer in 135-degree plus heat and do without a shower for several weeks. He should give up pizza and subway sandwiches and eat Meals, Ready to Eat or T-rations. He should spend a night getting mortared and having rockets land near him or travel Highway 1 with improvised explosive devices a possibility every day. Then his ill-fitting weapon problem would seem kind of silly. I seriously doubt the writer will need his weapon at Camp Wolverine, Kuwait, anyway.
Sgt. 1st Class Timothy L. Gray
Samarra, Iraq
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=20752Facts left out
I’d like to comment on the letter “A lesson in history” (Feb. 22). The letter was actually a mass e-mail that people have been circulating for the past month or so. But since the writer decided to take someone else’s work, let’s take a closer look at some of the points.
Yes, Germany never attacked the United States. It did, however, declare war on the U.S. on Dec. 11, 1941. The U.S. and Great Britain declared war on Japan just three days prior. Until that point, the U.S. had declared neutrality. It wasn’t until early 1942 that American troops arrived in Great Britain to fight. By this time the Germans had already invaded around 16 countries in Europe and were exterminating Jews. During the war, between 5.6 million and 5.9 million Jewish men, women and children died at the hands of the Nazis, not to mention the lives that were lost during Hitler’s invasions. I wonder how many more would have died if the U.S. hadn’t been “led into war” by a Democrat.
Within the first week of North Korea invading the south, more than 34,000 soldiers (a third of their army) and an untold number of civilians were killed, captured, or missing. The United Nations, supported by the U.S., committed troops to stop the unprovoked invasion of South Korea and the spread of communism (read axis of evil).
While President George H.W. Bush was “setting the standard for sending the military to do a job and get home,” as many as 100,000 U.S. troops were exposed to low levels of chemical warfare agents, including sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gases. More than 250,000 troops received pyridostigmine bromide, which cannot be ruled out as linked to Gulf War syndrome. About 436,000 troops entered into or lived for months within areas contaminated by more than 315 tons of depleted uranium radioactive toxic waste, possibly laced with trace amounts of highly radioactive plutonium and neptunium. All of this happened without the U.S. being attacked by Iraq (in either Gulf War).
In most of the points mentioned, the letter stated over and over again how the Democrats started a war with a country that never attacked us. Last time I checked, there has been no concrete evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida had ties to each other. Why is it OK to send troops to rid the world of a terrorist in this case and not in others? Moreover, I really fail to see the attempted connection between the use of the military and political affiliation. It seems like this was written to make the Republicans look like heroes by leaving a lot of facts out.
Kevin Drescher
Heidelberg, Germany
Fake soldiers?
I’m writing in response to the letter “Fed up” (Feb. 7). The writer said he’s fed up with the complaints of guardsmen and reservists. I’m fed up with active-duty soldiers making statements like this. I’m a National Guardsman and have been stationed in Baghdad for the last 10 months. Yes, I took the same oath as active-duty soldiers. But we aren’t treated the same. Active-duty soldiers have been getting better equipment and better benefits, but we’re expected to suck it up and drive on.
After nine months in country we started getting the Interceptor vests. We’re also required to have gun truck support after months of missions without either. I think guardsmen and reservists have every right to complain. Guardsmen and reservists have been treated like second-class citizens since we landed in country. Often we’re doing more of the workload with fewer resources.
The letter writer is a prime example of what’s wrong over here. He called us whiners and said we’re crying, but he’s doing the exact thing that he’s complaining about. But maybe I’m not interpreting his statements correctly since he’s a “real” soldier. Does that make us fake soldiers just because I’m able to maintain a good job in the real world and still serve my country (for 20 years as of today)?
Who is the writer, and so many just like him, to make blanket statements about other soldiers fighting alongside them? Active-duty soldiers should be grateful that we’re here. If we weren’t here, their numbers would be a lot smaller and their jobs a lot tougher.
Spc. Scott W. Stebler
Baghdad
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=20712Leave history to historians
The writer of the letter “A lesson in history” (Feb. 22) took revisionism too far. The United States never fought a war in Bosnia. The Clinton administration brokered the Dayton peace accord in 1995, which stopped the civil war in the Balkans. The United States then engaged in a peacekeeping mission which goes on today. It’s pertinent to point out that the peace has held and that there have been zero U.S. combat casualties in this effort.
The United States, with the support of NATO, did fight an air war against Serbia in 1999 in order to force a resolution to the Kosovo crisis. This was accomplished, along with the overthrow of the brutal Slobodan Milosevic, also without a single U.S. combat casualty.
The letter writer also implied that the cost in blood for the defeat of the totalitarian regimes in World War II rests entirely on the hands of the Democratic Party. This seems to hint that a Republican would not have engaged as hardy of opponents as Germany and Japan. I guess Republican presidents only like engaging Third World countries that pose no real threat to our interests. Apparently their strategy is to defeat them with overwhelming force and revel in the conquests so they can distract the public from their failures in other areas of foreign and domestic policy.
From the letter writer’s comments, I guess he feels that the Republicans would also have let the communists from North Korea roll over the legitimate government of South Korea. The writer also tried to hang Vietnam on President Kennedy’s administration. But the first U.S. advisors arrived in Vietnam during the Eisenhower administration, along with pledges to support the South Vietnamese government. A cursory check of dates also shows that during the last five years of that conflict — including the ignominious abandonment of South Vietnam to the communist takeover from the north — lies squarely on the backs of the Republican Nixon and Ford administrations.
The writer accused President Clinton of passing three times on offers from the Sudanese government to hand over Osama bin Laden. This is another falsehood being passed around by the conservative brotherhood dedicated to distorting history. This same group claimed in the last election that Oliver North had fingered bin Laden all the way back in 1987 during the Iran-contra hearings, to the dismay of then Sen. Al Gore. This is a myth that Col. North was honorable enough to deny publicly on his Web site.
Let’s leave history writing to the historians. If we want to publish fabrications, there’s a department in the library called “fiction” where such things are more aptly posted. Let the people who are running for public office (and those who honorably held office in the past) stand on their own merits without throwing out untruths that go unquestioned by the masses. I’m sure there will be more than enough mudslinging by the active participants in the coming months to more than satisfy the desire for lies and innuendo.
Master Sgt. Mike Williams (Ret.)
Camp Victory, Iraq
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=20711
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
