An American Who Wished Death on Our Servicemembers

[Michael Wise]

Printed in July 11 SF Chronicle letters to the editor, this punk seems
to want our troops to be killed.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07
/11/ED272984.DTL

Editor -- The constant loss of U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- after the war is
"won" -- is a tragedy. However, if this is what it takes to retire the
Bush administration at the next election, the sacrifice is justified.
ARIE L. BLEICHER
Mill Valley


Perhaps some kind people can think of something to say to this
gentleman. If so, you can reach him at:

Arie Bleicher
81 Oakdale Ave
Mill Valley, CA 94941
415-383-1177 and 415-383-1178

[Guy Alcala]

Michael Wise wrote:

> Printed in July 11 SF Chronicle letters to the editor, this punk seems
> to want our troops to be killed.
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07
> /11/ED272984.DTL
>
> Editor -- The constant loss of U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- after the war is
> "won" -- is a tragedy. However, if this is what it takes to retire the
> Bush administration at the next election, the sacrifice is justified.
> ARIE L. BLEICHER
> Mill Valley
>
> Perhaps some kind people can think of something to say to this
> gentleman. If so, you can reach him at:

<snip>

Today's (Sunday) Chronicle printed quite a few replies.

Guy

[Tuollaf43]

Michael Wise > wrote in message >...
> Printed in July 11 SF Chronicle letters to the editor, this punk seems
> to want our troops to be killed.
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07
> /11/ED272984.DTL
>
> Editor -- The constant loss of U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- after the war is
> "won" -- is a tragedy. However, if this is what it takes to retire the
> Bush administration at the next election, the sacrifice is justified.
> ARIE L. BLEICHER
> Mill Valley
>
>
> Perhaps some kind people can think of something to say to this
> gentleman. If so, you can reach him at:
>

Half a million Iraqi babies was deemed to be an acceptable price to
contain Saddam Hussian. I am sure all these good people must have been
real angry then too. They werent? Oh, well.

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Bill Jameson > wrote:


> > Printed in July 11 SF Chronicle letters to the editor, this punk seems
> > to want our troops to be killed.
>
> You post the letter writer's address and phone number while posting
> anonymously?

> You're a cowardly little ****, Michael Wise!

My contact information is available to anybody who knows how to use a
search engine and spends a few minutes looking.

You're lazy little ****, Bill Jameson.



--Mike

[Gooneybird]

John Ahlstrom wrote:
> Michael Wise wrote:

> How about:
> The constant loss of U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- after the war is
> "won" -- is a tragedy. However, if this is what it takes to
> bring a free and democratic government to Iraq, the sacrifice
> is justified.

Just out of curiosity, which of the following nations, all of whom have a
desperate need for a free and democratic government, is on our list of
sacrifices to be made?

Saudi Arabia
Iran
Syria
Lebanon
Pakistan
North Korea
China
Cuba
Egypt
Libya
plus half or more of the African continent

Is it really our national function in life to sacrifice American lives in order
to dish up free and democratic governments all over the world, sometimes to
people who don't even want it or wouldn't know what to do with it if they had
it?

If that's what Iraq was really about, we'd be wise to invest our money in
mortuary stocks because there's going to be an endless and ongoing supply of
business for them from our sacrificial lambs.

George Z.

[Stephen Harding]

Gooneybird wrote:

> John Ahlstrom wrote:
> > Michael Wise wrote:
>
> > How about:
> > The constant loss of U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- after the war is
> > "won" -- is a tragedy. However, if this is what it takes to
> > bring a free and democratic government to Iraq, the sacrifice
> > is justified.
>
> Just out of curiosity, which of the following nations, all of whom have a
> desperate need for a free and democratic government, is on our list of
> sacrifices to be made?
>
> Saudi Arabia
> Iran
> Syria
> Lebanon
> Pakistan
> North Korea
> China
> Cuba
> Egypt
> Libya
> plus half or more of the African continent
>
> Is it really our national function in life to sacrifice American lives in order
> to dish up free and democratic governments all over the world, sometimes to
> people who don't even want it or wouldn't know what to do with it if they had
> it?

It could be a very positive national interest item to have one of the most
important of Arab Muslim nations a democracy. It could dramatically effect
the entire region for the better as far as our national interests go.

> If that's what Iraq was really about, we'd be wise to invest our money in
> mortuary stocks because there's going to be an endless and ongoing supply of
> business for them from our sacrificial lambs.

Possibly, but I don't think necessarily so. Jury is still out as to whether
resistance to anything American (let alone "Western") is stronger than the
benefits of democratic and free market government that takes some patience to
implement in the region.

I still think the whole exercise was worth a try.


SMH

[John Ahlstrom]

Gooneybird wrote:
>
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, which of the following nations, all of whom have a
> desperate need for a free and democratic government, is on our list of
> sacrifices to be made?
>
> Saudi Arabia
> Iran
> Syria
> Lebanon
> Pakistan
> North Korea
> China
> Cuba
> Egypt
> Libya
> plus half or more of the African continent
>
> Is it really our national function in life to sacrifice American lives in order
> to dish up free and democratic governments all over the world, sometimes to
> people who don't even want it or wouldn't know what to do with it if they had
> it?
>
> If that's what Iraq was really about, we'd be wise to invest our money in
> mortuary stocks because there's going to be an endless and ongoing supply of
> business for them from our sacrificial lambs.
>
> George Z.


****General Comment
In the late 50s and the 60s there was a lot of discussion
about the US as a World Policeman. As far as I remember the
discussion was almost always in terms of whether the US
COULD be policeman, not whether it SHOULD be policeman.

Any one else remember these discussions?
If that was the nature of the discussions then,
when did it change?


***Comment on which countries are on our list.
Someone (Kissinger?) said that US foreign policy is
most effective when it serves both our national interest
and our moral mission. That is both oil and regime change.

Given that

Saudi Arabia - No: too much hard geography
Iran ditto
Syria Yes: zero oil score but huge democracy score
Lebanon ditto
Pakistan No: too much geography and population
North Korea No: too close to S Korea, can do too much damage
China No: too much geography and population
Cuba No: not worth it
Egypt No: Too much geography and population
Libya Yes: Just right size and population
plus half or more of the African continent


--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures,
will the right answers come out?'
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of
ideas that could provoke such a question.

[Gooneybird]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Gooneybird wrote:

(Snip)
>
> > Is it really our national function in life to sacrifice American lives in
order
> > to dish up free and democratic governments all over the world, sometimes to
> > people who don't even want it or wouldn't know what to do with it if they
had
> > it?
>
> It could be a very positive national interest item to have one of the most
> important of Arab Muslim nations a democracy. It could dramatically effect
> the entire region for the better as far as our national interests go.

It could, and by the same token, it might become an endless morass from which we
would only be able to extricate ourselves at huge cost to our national
reputation, the respect we get as a nation from others, and the esteem in which
others hold us. You probably didn't notice it, but the one country I left out
of my list of potential targets was the one we should have learned something of
value from, but apparently didn't.....Viet Nam. We learned painful and
unpalatable lessons from that experience (which I, incidentally, completely
supported at the time), and I'm more than a little distressed to note that those
lessons seem to be disappearing behind the fog of political idealism.
>
> > If that's what Iraq was really about, we'd be wise to invest our money in
> > mortuary stocks because there's going to be an endless and ongoing supply of
> > business for them from our sacrificial lambs.
>
> Possibly, but I don't think necessarily so. Jury is still out as to whether
> resistance to anything American (let alone "Western") is stronger than the
> benefits of democratic and free market government that takes some patience to
> implement in the region.
>
> I still think the whole exercise was worth a try.

I think the grieving families of the past and future casualties we've had and
will continue to have in Iraq might possibly think otherwise, particularly
those amongst them who never gave a rat's ass for the Iraqi people in the past,
if indeed they had even heard of Iraq at all.

Perhaps I need to remind you that our last major effort along those lines that
didn't involve Iraq resulted in our abandonment of our peacekeeping efforts in
Lebanon with nothing of value to show for the several hundred casualties we
sustained at the Beirut International Airport.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

George Z.

[The Enlightenment]

"John Ahlstrom" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Wise wrote:
> >
> > Printed in July 11 SF Chronicle letters to the editor, this punk seems
> > to want our troops to be killed.
> >
> >
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07
> > /11/ED272984.DTL
> >
> > Editor -- The constant loss of U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- after the war is
> > "won" -- is a tragedy. However, if this is what it takes to retire the
> > Bush administration at the next election, the sacrifice is justified.
> > ARIE L. BLEICHER
> > Mill Valley
> >
> > Perhaps some kind people can think of something to say to this
> > gentleman. If so, you can reach him at:
> >
> > Arie Bleicher
> > 81 Oakdale Ave
> > Mill Valley, CA 94941
> > 415-383-1177 and 415-383-1178
>
> How about:
> The constant loss of U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- after the war is
> "won" -- is a tragedy. However, if this is what it takes to
> bring a free and democratic government to Iraq, the sacrifice
> is justified.
>
> John Ahlstrom
>
> I support our troops.
> I support the war.
> I support our nation.
> I support our constitution.
> I do not support our (current) government.
> --

I would suggest that Mr Arie Bleicher probably wouldn't support all aspects
of the constitution (especialy those to do with free speech) and would
support
a rather "marxist" like look for the nation.

[Kirk Stant]

We fought this war in Iraq for a really obvious reason that nobody
seems to see.

It wasn't about oil, we could buy it a lot cheaper.

It wasn't about WMDs, Saddam was too chicke**** to use them against
us.

It wasn't about Al-Qaida, they hated Saddam more than we did!

It was to end a war that had been going on for 13 years (longer than
Vietnam!) and get our forces out of the area.

And it is working, somewhat. We are pulling most forces out of Saudi
Arabia, finally; Northern and Souther Watch are over (I got my combat
time flying out of Incerlik in 93 - relatively early in the war).

Now we just have to patch up Iraq enough that they can stand up on
their own, then BUG OUT!!!!

Big Picture, guys, and it takes more than a few years....

Kirk

Remember, if you want to make a dog drink, you have to put it in a
blender.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gooneybird" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gooneybird wrote:
>
> (Snip)
> >
> > > Is it really our national function in life to sacrifice American lives
in
> order
> > > to dish up free and democratic governments all over the world,
sometimes to
> > > people who don't even want it or wouldn't know what to do with it if
they
> had
> > > it?
> >
> > It could be a very positive national interest item to have one of the
most
> > important of Arab Muslim nations a democracy. It could dramatically
effect
> > the entire region for the better as far as our national interests go.
>
> It could, and by the same token, it might become an endless morass from
which we
> would only be able to extricate ourselves at huge cost to our national
> reputation, the respect we get as a nation from others, and the esteem in
which
> others hold us. You probably didn't notice it, but the one country I left
out
> of my list of potential targets was the one we should have learned
something of
> value from, but apparently didn't.....Viet Nam.

Viet Nam was the left's war and we all fully understand that you lack the
political will to win a war Goonie.

That is why the American People have chosen to offer Democtats no leadership
role in the Federal Government, for two elections.

Don't let your cowardice cost my children more than your welfare check, old
fool.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Stephen Harding]

Gooneybird wrote:

> It could, and by the same token, it might become an endless morass from which we
> would only be able to extricate ourselves at huge cost to our national
> reputation, the respect we get as a nation from others, and the esteem in which
> others hold us. You probably didn't notice it, but the one country I left out
> of my list of potential targets was the one we should have learned something of
> value from, but apparently didn't.....Viet Nam. We learned painful and
> unpalatable lessons from that experience (which I, incidentally, completely
> supported at the time), and I'm more than a little distressed to note that those
> lessons seem to be disappearing behind the fog of political idealism.

Well of course critics have claimed every US involvement since Vietnam was going
to be another "Vietnam" and it doesn't seem to have happened. I think some
critics claimed "quagmire" in Afghanistan after only 3 weeks of fighting! Others
complain that because Iraq isn't now a shining example of democratic values, we've
failed.

Not saying Iraq can even become a real democracy. The US doesn't have an
especially good track record of installing democracy since WWII. But it
seems doable.

Nothing is really guaranteed, but never has been. WWII or the Civil War or
the Revolution were not done deals that everyone climbed on board with their
full support for the duration. Maybe WWII was the best of the bunch in this
regard, but even by 1945 apparently there were grumblings and discontent
over the demands of the war. And those wars could have been lost as well!

> I think the grieving families of the past and future casualties we've had and
> will continue to have in Iraq might possibly think otherwise, particularly
> those amongst them who never gave a rat's ass for the Iraqi people in the past,
> if indeed they had even heard of Iraq at all.

Wonder how many WWII families cared about Papua New Guinea, or Guadalcanal or
Tarawa. Probably not a lot even for some unknown mountainside in Italy or
river crossing in France.

You don't need to point solely to Vietnam as the origin for a lot of heartbreak
in people mourning the loss of a loved one in war.

> Perhaps I need to remind you that our last major effort along those lines that
> didn't involve Iraq resulted in our abandonment of our peacekeeping efforts in
> Lebanon with nothing of value to show for the several hundred casualties we
> sustained at the Beirut International Airport.

Lebanon was a wash from day one. Why we ever went there as "peace keepers" is
beyond me. Same goes for Somalia. There was no national interest in Somalia
and no possibility of success in Lebanon. The fact that leaders cut their
losses when they did was the best that could be achieved.

And of course we're still stuck in Bosnia and Kosovo, with no particular
exit criteria and little gain in national interest. It's a "feel good"
involvement covering for others that ought to be doing the job. If the going
got rough in either of those two places, we'd pull a Somalia or Lebanon and
be gone, and it would be the best thing that we could do.

I think there is some national will in favor of the goal of Iraqi involvement.
It has tremendous potential for favorable result for American national interests.
It seems doable. There will never be guarantees of easy success in any
non-trivial international undertaking.

> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Of course! This is the internet!


SMH