NationStates Jolt Archive

President Bush:

Let me preface this letter saying that I try to look at all issues objectivly, and singularly when possible. I don't tout a party line, but instead, I have many views, which depending on the topic, put me hard left, hard right, or upside down to be honest.

I have seen you do things I thought good or admirable. Not very often, in my humble opinion, but at times. I believe you are a good person, who simply chooses certain things I find to be very bad decisions in the long run of things. However, I am totally willing to hear valid counter-points.

Now, let me get to my point: We are going about the war on terrorism in the wrong way. Any sophomore political science major should be able to write you essays on how terrorism cannot be deafeted with direct military force. You can attack the results, but not the causes in this way.

I call upon you to look at your decisions, look at mine, and reconsider the direction you are taking us.

I ask you to hold referendums in Iraq, and Afghanistan. If the people there wish for us to be there, let them vote for us. Hold the referendums in each region of the country, and pull out of the ones where a majority wants us out. There are no weapons of mass destruction there, no dictators holding them under a steel-toed boot, and they wouldn't be asking for us to be there in that case, which are the main given reasons for this war.

If we only stay in territories where we are wanted, our standing in the world will go up by leaps and bounds. We will show that we truly appreciate democracy. We will show that we are not being imperialist, or trying to start some sort of an empire. We are simply helping people who wish for our help, in large numbers.

We should completely pull out of these countries within the next five years, and only stay that long in the regions we are asked too. No lingering bases, etc. If we want to really acknowledge and appreciate the new democratic government of iraq, we will free them of ourselves.

We should stay out of further middle eastern affairs. Israel is a nuclear power with the most capable military in the middle east, especially defensively. Cut off our aid to them. Make them have to trade for our technology and goods like anybody else. Allow the United Nations to deal with issues in the middle east. As much as you seem to have disdain for them, they have averted major war since world war two. The good they have done for this world outdoes any corruption that has occured.

Furthermore, stay out of other countries affairs in general, unless they wish for american assistance. Just because we have the most capable military in the world, does not mean we have to constantly use it. Instead of having our soldiers die in bush wars(No pun intended, I swear), they could be here to deal with domestic issues, like terrorism, relief efforts when needed, etc.

Money gained from this general pull-out should not be thrown into the consumer market, but instead be used to help pay for the programs we are trying to fund, and bolster homeland security.

More money into homeland security, as well as much less motive for people to become terrorists, is just about the most assured way to decrease the number of terrorist attacks in America.

I hope this letter really does make it to your eyes, Mr. President. I understand you have reasons for what you do, but I can only hope you can deeply think about the choices you have made, and see that they won't work in the long run, or at least not as well as they could.

Tony Evan Carpentier
California

Generally good thinking... but do you honestly think that will change a thing?

Honestly, yes I do.

This policy would show the world that we are trying to promote good things, good values. We really are trying to help people, and do good things.

It would show we don't want to interfere with people who don't want us too, and that there is a mutual non-agression between us and those who are currently our enemies.

Even if Al-queda still wanted us all dead, they would not be able to even come close to gathering as much support against us, if all we wanted to do was help people who wanted our help, and not more than this.

(Another honestly)

Do you honestly think that good 'ol GWBush is open minded enough to even be on this forum?

(Another honestly)

Do you honestly think that good 'ol GWBush is open minded enough to even be on this forum?

Its an open letter.

I mailed it to the white house email, though I doubt it will ever reach his eyes.

Honestly, yes I do.

This policy would show the world that we are trying to promote good things, good values. We really are trying to help people, and do good things.

It would show we don't want to interfere with people who don't want us too, and that there is a mutual non-agression between us and those who are currently our enemies.

Even if Al-queda still wanted us all dead, they would not be able to even come close to gathering as much support against us, if all we wanted to do was help people who wanted our help, and not more than this.

Sorry, that was a misunderstanding here. I mean, those suggestions are sound enough. I just doubt that you will ever get any politician to read it, let alone change his policies accordingly...

Sorry, that was a misunderstanding here. I mean, those suggestions are sound enough. I just doubt that you will ever get any politician to read it, let alone change his policies accordingly...

Fair enough. However, if I can get one person to even think about the subject more deeply by reading this post, politically influenced or not, I have done a good thing.

Fair enough. However, if I can get one person to even think about the subject more deeply by reading this post, politically influenced or not, I have done a good thing.

Admirable attitude. :)

Fair enough. However, if I can get one person to even think about the subject more deeply by reading this post, politically influenced or not, I have done a good thing.
Don't forget that the White House is a very big organisation for a single post to get lost in. The most it will probably achieve is a slight sigh of boredom from the assistant typist or something.

So here's what I propose to really make a difference:
Stick the message in some kind of self replicating and self mailing trojan and let it spread through the world! If every single computer on the planet has a copy of your message, it's bound to get to Bush himself eventually, and maybe even cause a few million ordinary people to see your point of view.

Free Source! :D (Forgive me lord, I know not what I say).

I ask you to hold referendums in Iraq, and Afghanistan. If the people there wish for us to be there, let them vote for us. Hold the referendums in each region of the country, and pull out of the ones where a majority wants us out. There are no weapons of mass destruction there, no dictators holding them under a steel-toed boot, and they wouldn't be asking for us to be there in that case, which are the main given reasons for this war.

If we only stay in territories where we are wanted, our standing in the world will go up by leaps and bounds. We will show that we truly appreciate democracy. We will show that we are not being imperialist, or trying to start some sort of an empire. We are simply helping people who wish for our help, in large numbers.

I like this idea!

Good job, and I agree...if even one person is swayed by your letter, it is certainly worth the effort. :)

Don't forget that the White House is a very big organisation for a single post to get lost in. The most it will probably achieve is a slight sigh of boredom from the assistant typist or something.

So here's what I propose to really make a difference:
Stick the message in some kind of self replicating and self mailing trojan and let it spread through the world! If every single computer on the planet has a copy of your message, it's bound to get to Bush himself eventually, and maybe even cause a few million ordinary people to see your point of view.

Free Source! :D (Forgive me lord, I know not what I say).

I didn't mean one person in the white house; I meant one person in the world. I think this policy would be beneficial to everyone, us and our "enemies", and those uninvolved. If we can make a better solution, we should do it! Even if it isn't mine, as long as it improves things!

Good attempt. It won't work though.
Ideologues (like bush and his inner circle are) have blinders on that let them ignore/warp anything that doesn't suit their reality. And what you are requesting is a complete 180 degree change of how they perceive reality.

About the intervention in other nations. It's not just Bush doing it. It can be traced back to the 1800's.
The most famous admission of this is what Smedley Butler wrote to a newspaper. Paraphrased he said: I could have given Al Capone hints on how to run a protection racket, he had trouble controlling three city districts, I controlled three continents.

Then there is the general corruption (err I mean lobbying & funding election campaigns) going on. You will not see a lowering of expenses since that would risk either losing out on nices bonusses now, a lucrative job later and not getting re-elected if you don't repay the favor of getting cash for getting elected.

I didn't mean one person in the white house; I meant one person in the world. I think this policy would be beneficial to everyone, us and our "enemies", and those uninvolved. If we can make a better solution, we should do it! Even if it isn't mine, as long as it improves things!
There is that whole clause in the American Constitution or something which says "Rebellion is not only your right, but your duty." Do you think push has come to shove yet? I mean the Patriot Act is a dead giveaway for the attempted consolidation of a dictatorial regime.

Its an open letter.

I mailed it to the white house email, though I doubt it will ever reach his eyes.
That's true.
Good letter, but it won't change anything.

Sorry, that was a misunderstanding here. I mean, those suggestions are sound enough. I just doubt that you will ever get any politician to read it, let alone change his policies accordingly...
Well quite, but perhaps one of Bush's aides or keepers might read it out to him?

President Bush has read your letter and has sent you a fruit basket and a card that says "Cram it, ugly. I'm King!" and still continues to do as he pleases without worrying about the rest of us.

Thanks for trying, though. It's a good letter. Maybe next Pres. :(

I think the Bush administration knows a bit more about world politics than we do (secret plans ect)

I say you form your own movement and get elected (or have a revolution if you want) once your in power plunder the treasury and vomit on a politician of a country you don't know or care about

Note: what if a state in the union decides it wants to leave the U.S of A?

I think the Bush administration knows a bit more about world politics than we do (secret plans ect)

I say you form your own movement and get elected (or have a revolution if you want) once your in power plunder the treasury and vomit on a politician of a country you don't know or care about

Note: what if a state in the union decides it wants to leave the U.S of A?


Well... last time anyone tried that the US of A spanked the bejeebers out of them....

You can sing about your Beauregard or pray for Bobby Lee,
but the gallant paps Thomas he raised Hell in Tenessee!

Well... last time anyone tried that the US of A spanked the bejeebers out of them....

You can sing about your Beauregard or pray for Bobby Lee,
but the gallant paps Thomas he raised Hell in Tenessee!

I was thinking more along the lines of Hawaii

I was thinking more along the lines of Hawaii

Same situation as far as I am concerned...
Pity da fool!
No state naval guard or whatever can prevail against the might of the US Navy.

Same situation as far as I am concerned...
Pity da fool!
No state naval guard or whatever can prevail against the might of the US Navy.

isn't allot of the pacific fleet based in the Hawaiian islands? if so as you stated you ain't got a chance in hell should the natives get pissed

I'm not a fan of Bush but even I'm not swayed by your arguments. Firstly we all like to think democracy is great and it works (better than anything else) well for us. However in Iraq democracy just means electing the most religious Muslim over and over (the problem of the last election they had). possibly even voting away democracy since that again is also not the Muslim was of doing things.

The people that don't want Americas help often need it the most. People asking for help from the West won't typically then go out of their way to try and destroy the western lifestyle. If you really wanted to make a difference try and get yourself involved in Politics get yourself elected and give your views to the President direct :D, heck if George Galloway can do it anyone can.

isn't allot of the pacific fleet based in the Hawaiian islands? if so as you stated you ain't got a chance in hell should the natives get pissed

Do you think that the entire force of the USN based in Hawaii will defect en masse?
What natives think don't matter too much in the end...
The people of New Orleans were pissed at the Union, and at Butler.
And Butler was Effective enough in whipping them into submission.
I've always enjoyed his proclamation that any female insulting the Army would be treated as a prostitute.

But then again... I felt it was a bit mellow.
Being the utterly ruthless character that I am, I would have been perfectly capable of forcing any female who was remiss in allegiance to the Union into being a comfort girl for the Union Armies.

The message is plain and simple:
You wish to be free of the onus of the Constitution?
Have it your way... while I have it my way. And don't bitch if that makes your worst nightmares come true.

nobody suffering under a steel-toed boot?

S-A-D-D-A-M

why isn't he in power anymore?

because of the coalition that took him out.

Would you wish him on those people?

If not, then what's wrong with what we did?

They have democratic elections because of us... they would not have had that under Saddam.

Like it or not, we have a responsibility to help oppressed people attain freedom or at least greater levels of freedom... we should be willing to help curb oppression... and to think that Saddam wasn't an oppressor/murderer of his own people would be to turn a blind eye to the truth.

Now we're there to help the new Iraqi government get a governing foothold, to help Iraqi security forces secure a fighting chance to protect the law-abiding citizens of the new democratic Iraq. I say that's something worth fighting for... and it should be for anyone who values freedom.

nobody suffering under a steel-toed boot?

S-A-D-D-A-M

why isn't he in power anymore?

because of the coalition that took him out.

Would you wish him on those people?

If not, then what's wrong with what we did?

They have democratic elections because of us... they would not have had that under Saddam.

Like it or not, we have a responsibility to help oppressed people attain freedom or at least greater levels of freedom... we should be willing to help curb oppression... and to think that Saddam wasn't an oppressor/murderer of his own people would be to turn a blind eye to the truth.

Now we're there to help the new Iraqi government get a governing foothold, to help Iraqi security forces secure a fighting chance to protect the law-abiding citizens of the new democratic Iraq. I say that's something worth fighting for... and it should be for anyone who values freedom.


OOOKAY!!!
Let's talk about Saddam.
And lets talk about freedom of expression.

As you may have noticed, there's a lot of folks in the arab world who express their opinion by flying airplanes into buildings.

So: are you certain that taking out a dictator who did a swell job of denying those folks the chance of expressing their opinions is a great idea?

Is it wise to allow those Arabs to express their opinions again?

Is this consistent with keeping America safe from more expressions of brotherly love from the Arab World?

I'm not a fan of Bush but even I'm not swayed by your arguments. Firstly we all like to think democracy is great and it works (better than anything else) well for us. However in Iraq democracy just means electing the most religious Muslim over and over (the problem of the last election they had). possibly even voting away democracy since that again is also not the Muslim was of doing things.

The people that don't want Americas help often need it the most. People asking for help from the West won't typically then go out of their way to try and destroy the western lifestyle. If you really wanted to make a difference try and get yourself involved in Politics get yourself elected and give your views to the President direct :D, heck if George Galloway can do it anyone can.

Ohh, don't get me wrong. I think democracy has huge flaws, and don't wish it upon people.

However, our administration does. If they want to show they have valid points, even if they are counterproductive, I suggest they follow my advice. It will help them achieve their goals. The effectiveness of those goals are a different story.

nobody suffering under a steel-toed boot?

S-A-D-D-A-M

why isn't he in power anymore?

because of the coalition that took him out.

Yes, they did.

Would you wish him on those people?

If not, then what's wrong with what we did?

Would I wish Saddam upon the Iraqi's? No. However, compared to the alternatives, I think he was a better choice at the time.

Iraq is currently a destabilized warzone. After hundreds of billions of dollars spent, over 2000 americans dead, over 45000 iraqi's dead, over 20000 americans injured, over 40000 iraqi's injured, the death rate is up from the past(after '91), even including the kids previously dying of starvation due to sanctions. What have the Iraqi's really gotten from this iraqi/american sacrifice? A much more lawless country, with a more screwed up economy. They did get to vote for their leaders; and promptly are voting in Sharia law. If they continue this path, civil war seems inevitable.

Why sacrifice so much, just to make life worse for the iraqi's?

They have democratic elections because of us... they would not have had that under Saddam.

And democracy is not all its cracked up to be. Saddam was pretty tame after '91. We should have bombed sites we thought were WMD labs, and been done with it.

Like it or not, we have a responsibility to help oppressed people attain freedom or at least greater levels of freedom... we should be willing to help curb oppression... and to think that Saddam wasn't an oppressor/murderer of his own people would be to turn a blind eye to the truth.

I hear this alot, and find it rediculous. What the hell gives us a responsibility to do anything like this? Because we are the strongest country in the world? Thats utter nonsense. Saddam wasn't an oppressor or murderer of his own people. He was the murderer and oppressor of some people of his country, to try to make his country better as a whole. The needs of the many, the needs of the few?

Taking saddam out has only made things worse, with little prospect for improvement in the future.

Now we're there to help the new Iraqi government get a governing foothold, to help Iraqi security forces secure a fighting chance to protect the law-abiding citizens of the new democratic Iraq. I say that's something worth fighting for... and it should be for anyone who values freedom.

So whats wrong with allowing the iraqi's the freedom to vote for whether or not they still want us there?

Would I wish Saddam upon the Iraqi's? No. However, compared to the alternatives, I think he was a better choice at the time.

Iraq is currently a destabilized warzone. After hundreds of billions of dollars spent, over 2000 americans dead, over 45000 iraqi's dead, over 20000 americans injured, over 40000 iraqi's injured, the death rate is up from the past(after '91), even including the kids previously dying of starvation due to sanctions. What have the Iraqi's really gotten from this iraqi/american sacrifice? A much more lawless country, with a more screwed up economy. They did get to vote for their leaders; and promptly are voting in Sharia law. If they continue this path, civil war seems inevitable.

Why sacrifice so much, just to make life worse for the iraqi's?

Indeed, though it should be important to note also that it has destabilised the region as a whole.

Firstly, terrorism is on the rise in Saudi Arabia with attacks on Western business interests.

Secondly, the population in the Middle-East is becoming increasingly anti-US and radical as indicated by increased support for Islamist parties.

Finally, the presence of US troops in Iraq in supplement to US presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan in addition to increasing hostility from the west has led to feelings of encirclement and paranoia in Iran. There is great support among the Iranian people for their nuclear program because they fear the actions of the west. Our policy actions have only served to rally the Iranian people behind their government.

And democracy is not all its cracked up to be. Saddam was pretty tame after '91. We should have bombed sites we thought were WMD labs, and been done with it.

True enough. While democracy has created, for the most part, good governance in the west; one does have to question the morality of a system that grants equal voice and weight to the informed and uninformed alike.

In answer to the quote, I would argue the reason why Iraqis are voting for clerics and politicians who take quite authoritarian political stances are that there is no pre-existing tradition of liberty in the country. In Britain and most other European countries, there existed a feudal system that granted certain liberties to the population and over time this evolved into the modern democracy. In Saddam's Iraq, there was little if any liberty and then all of a sudden they have democracy thrust upon them and they are expected by us in the west to suddenly vote the way we do.

What Iraq trully needed was an evolutionary stage where the people realised a desire for freedom. Without it, there can be no evolution (or revolution as the case may be) towards a functioning and workable democracy. This is one reason, in addition to pre-existing sectarian and ethnic divisions, why the Iraq 'project' is failing, and why our democratically accountable leaders are working their little cotton socks off to paint a rosier picture of Iraq's political experiment.

In short; there can be liberty without democracy but there cannot be democracy without liberty.

So whats wrong with allowing the iraqi's the freedom to vote for whether or not they still want us there?

Nothing, perfectly reasoned.

And I thought this was an interesting discussion....

And I thought this was an interesting discussion....

It was, and I quite agree with your points ^_^

There is a serious underground movement here in Rhode Island to leave the union. I would say that there are 150,000 strong here. Not many really, but if that proportion were everywhere in america (about 1.5/10), then there would be an interesting debate everywhere.

:rolleyes:

Well quite, but perhaps one of Bush's aides or keepers might read it out to him?
Or perhaps Cheeny will read it and have it be called Treason.

I was thinking more along the lines of Hawaii

Hawaii angers me to no end on that point. I lived there for almost two years, and this is the general impression I got - "We want to be just enough part of America to take advantage of all the income it brings in without having to actually be part of America"

There is a serious underground movement here in Rhode Island to leave the union. I would say that there are 150,000 strong here. Not many really, but if that proportion were everywhere in america (about 1.5/10), then there would be an interesting debate everywhere.

We were our own country for awhile before, until the U.S. told us (in more diplomatic terms, of course) join us or die.

Great letter, you are a articulate and intelligent person, and I tip my hat to you ::tips hat::

I also like the fact that you still have hope. I, myself, have lost mine. Keep yours alive, it really is the thing that will lead to a better world, if it is possible. I'm fucking obsolete. All I can do anymore is lash out and fight pointless battles to make my own self feel better.

That's the most honest I've been with myself in a while. I wonder what brought that on.



Anyway, your suggestions are sound, the only problem is that Bush and his inner circle (who are running things just as much as and possibly more then he is) don't have anyone's best intrests in mind but their own. They don't want to get rid of terrorism. They want to amass wealth and power, and keep that wealth and power in their community. The US government is the vehical through which they are accomplishing their goals.

bump

Still havn't got a reply from the white house, other than the electronic auto-reply :(

At least john kerry sends me his mass emails to his supporters(Wow, I am so special).

Well quite, but perhaps one of Bush's aides or keepers might read it out to him?
i cant help it. . .

can he read?

does he have helpers that read to him?

no seriously; he needs an iq test to see if he's not a puppet. someone has their hand up his ass in more than one way.

no one listens to you. at all. why do we think our gov't listens?

. . . the only problem is that Bush and his inner circle (who are running things just as much as and possibly more then he is) don't have anyone's best intrests in mind but their own. They don't want to get rid of terrorism. They want to amass wealth and power, and keep that wealth and power in their community. The US government is the vehical through which they are accomplishing their goals.

i love you

i love you

Then let us be lovers, and we can stare deep into each other's eyes as we write our manifestos under a bare bulb, homemade C4 and maps to government facilities tucked serinly in the corner :)

Dear Sir,
Although generally a sound letter, I would like to point out something to you regarding Israel and aid supplied by America. Contrary to what you have been told, Israel trades more with America then any other Middle Eastern state. Israel's achievements in technology, science, the arts and unfortunately the way in which the aftermath of terrorist attacks is dealt with, have all been shared with America and other countries. The aid they recieve in comparison to their neighbours is relatively small but the use which they put the aid to is quite stark in comparison. Whereas Arafat spent his money on Mercedes for himself, Israel spends aid on Hospitals. Where the PA spend money on funding suicide bombers, Israel spends money on schools. Where Iran spends its money on Nuclear Weapons, Israel spends it on the welfare of its people. So i would like to refute you on the point that we should stop aid to Israel. Infact i would like to suggest that it isnt aid but trade.
Secondly yes, Israel is a nuclear power, but to suggest that they shouldnt be, in the region they are situated in, is maddness! Never would Israel threaten a fellow UN member like Iran has. To suggest that they Israel should not have the right to defend itself and deter its hateful enemies is utterly absurd! I would be interested to hear your reply

Regards

Ross Markham

You make it sound as if Israel spends money on nothing but schools and hospitals. But they also spend money on blowing up Palistinian schools and hospitals.

I don't take sides in the Israel/Palistine debate, as I see both sides as wrong and brutal, but please don't try to paint Israel as some white knights fighting off hoards of demon spawn while still having time to read to sick orphands and build houses for the homeless with Jimmy Carter.

Sophomoric (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sophomoric)

President Bush:

Let me preface this letter saying that I try to look at all issues objectivly, and singularly when possible. I don't tout a party line, but instead, I have many views, which depending on the topic, put me hard left, hard right, or upside down to be honest.

I have seen you do things I thought good or admirable. Not very often, in my humble opinion, but at times. I believe you are a good person, who simply chooses certain things I find to be very bad decisions in the long run of things. However, I am totally willing to hear valid counter-points.

Now, let me get to my point: We are going about the war on terrorism in the wrong way. Any sophomore political science major should be able to write you essays on how terrorism cannot be deafeted with direct military force. You can attack the results, but not the causes in this way.

Please shows us some of this "sophomoric (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sophomoric)" work. That would be helpful in
determining if you are correct.


I call upon you to look at your decisions, look at mine, and reconsider the direction you are taking us.

I ask you to hold referendums in Iraq, and Afghanistan. If the people there wish for us to be there, let them vote for us. Hold the referendums in each region of the country, and pull out of the ones where a majority wants us out.

Who is "them"? Does this include the "bad guys"?


There are no weapons of mass destruction there, no dictators holding them under a steel-toed boot, and they wouldn't be asking for us to be there in that case, which are the main given reasons for this war.

The "given reasons" for this war are no longer applicable. I could just as
correctly demand we attack England tomorrow because of that little War of
1812 thing, under your reasoning.

I actually agree with you on this, but not for your reasons. I think we should
simply hold a gun to their heads (their governments) and demand that they
develop free market republics that are friendly with the US in terms of trade
and "free market republican" policies,.. and if they don't live up to their task,
we make life miserable (infrastructure and personnel destruction) until they
wise up.


If we only stay in territories where we are wanted, our standing in the world will go up by leaps and bounds.

Rubish. Is this just a hope, or do you have ANY proof that this would follow?


We will show that we truly appreciate democracy. We will show that we are not being imperialist, or trying to start some sort of an empire. We are simply helping people who wish for our help, in large numbers.

If we were to leave those areas where "the bad guys" could form a base of
support, they would use those to harrass the "nice guys" territory. This is
called "Civil War".

Having a country composed of little "good guy" states and little "bad guy"
states is a recipe for the "bad guys" to win, because of the inherent
advantage of the "bad guys". They are not trying to CONSTRUCT anything,
only to BREAK the enemy's somethings. BREAKING things is much easier than
CONSTRUCTING things, and anything short of complete destruction of
the "bad guys" guarantees, at best, an internal war where the bad guys are
driven out (or killed) by a weaker force (the national forces) than would
otherwise drive them out (our forces and their national forces).

Short wars are better than long wars, and to not help them extends their
suffering.


We should completely pull out of these countries within the next five years, and only stay that long in the regions we are asked too. No lingering bases, etc. If we want to really acknowledge and appreciate the new democratic government of iraq, we will free them of ourselves.

I totally agree. BUT, if they want us to have bases there, it is their right.

We (the US and coalition forces) are not something to be "freed of". We are
to be respectfully utilized, if we choose to be utilized by others.


We should stay out of further middle eastern affairs. Israel is a nuclear power with the most capable military in the middle east, especially defensively.
Cut off our aid to them. Make them have to trade for our technology and goods like anybody else.

One does not abandon one's friends. This is shear anti-israeli propoganda,
and would show us as the unworthy friends to others that the "America
Haters" have been trying to make us into.


Allow the United Nations to deal with issues in the middle east. As much as you seem to have disdain for them, they have averted major war since world war two. The good they have done for this world outdoes any corruption that has occured.

The UN has done nothing to avert any major conflict EVER. The only aversion
to "major war", by which you seem to mean "World War", is the continued
vigilance and strength of the US and US allies (friends).

The "corruption" scandals in the UN are just one would expect from an
organization with the incapability of doing anything constructive (with the
exception of health and refugee issues which is NOT what it was set up to
do) and with WAY too much time on it's hands.


Furthermore, stay out of other countries affairs in general, unless they wish for american assistance. Just because we have the most capable military in the world, does not mean we have to constantly use it. Instead of having our soldiers die in bush wars(No pun intended, I swear), they could be here to deal with domestic issues, like terrorism, relief efforts when needed, etc.

Agreed. And you'd be AMAZED how often other countries would request our
help.


Money gained from this general pull-out should not be thrown into the consumer market, but instead be used to help pay for the programs we are trying to fund, and bolster homeland security.

More money into homeland security, as well as much less motive for people to become terrorists, is just about the most assured way to decrease the number of terrorist attacks in America.

The only way to lessen the urge to become a terrorist is to have better
things to do than to become a terrorist.

This means, have a prosperous economy. How does a "poor oppressed"
country become prosperous? By having the goverment adhere to simple free
market republican concepts. Why would the powerful elites in these countries
give up power to this end? What would motivate them to do so?

Think about that one, and get back to me with your thoughts.


I hope this letter really does make it to your eyes, Mr. President. I understand you have reasons for what you do, but I can only hope you can deeply think about the choices you have made, and see that they won't work in the long run, or at least not as well as they could.

Tony Evan Carpentier
California

Good job Tony..!

The question is, are you willing to have a REAL discussion about the
implications of your "suggestions", or are you satisfied with your
proclamations of superiority?

If you're into discussion, and not all about the glory of telling the POTUS
what to do, let's continue.


-Iakeo

You act like I showed up on my first day here, and posted a random letter, hoping nobody would give me any negative comments. I can handle small arguments ^_^


Sophomoric (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sophomoric)



Please shows us some of this "sophomoric (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sophomoric)" work. That would be helpful in
determining if you are correct.

I figure most, if not all people who know two things about politics see it as common knowledge that terrorism cannot be defeated by direct military influence alone. If you really disagree, then we can argue it. But I see it as common knowledge.

Who is "them"? Does this include the "bad guys"?

I already said who they were, "the people there", meaning the people who live in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't know what you mean by "Bad guys". Do you mean insurgents? Foreign terrorists? People who don't like us?

Regardless, I assume it would work the same way that we are holding the national elections, etc. They seem to have a system worked out, I trust it would work for this purpose.

The "given reasons" for this war are no longer applicable. I could just as
correctly demand we attack England tomorrow because of that little War of
1812 thing, under your reasoning.

I'm not saying the reasons are impossible to change. However, all the given reasons are debunked, and unless there are some more to give, I see no point in staying.

And your point about the war of 1812 is nonsensical. The war is over, and the original reasons for the war are gone. What part of my reasoning would apply?

I actually agree with you on this, but not for your reasons. I think we should
simply hold a gun to their heads (their governments) and demand that they
develop free market republics that are friendly with the US in terms of trade
and "free market republican" policies,.. and if they don't live up to their task,
we make life miserable (infrastructure and personnel destruction) until they
wise up.

And while this works for your agenda, its a very close minded one. This letter is addressing the president, who talks about giving the iraqi's democracy, freedom, etc. I have my personal views; but this letter is about helping the president achieve his goals best, while not ruining other things.

Rubish. Is this just a hope, or do you have ANY proof that this would follow?

Proof is very subjective.

Again, it seems to me that a large part of our negative connotation around the world is our unjust(to others eyes, to be objective) war against iraq, the occupation, etc. Europe mostly see's it as a unilateral thing. The Middle east see's it as an evil occupation.

Is it really that large a leap to assume that if we leave places we arent wanted, people will respect us more? You are nitpicking, and I don't see why.

If we were to leave those areas where "the bad guys" could form a base of
support, they would use those to harrass the "nice guys" territory. This is
called "Civil War".

And we would have the support of the local populace, for the most part, against these "bad guys" who you speak of.

These "bad guys" are already after us. Their numbers won't increase if we leave places we arent wanted, thats an absurd thought. So at best, they remain, otherwise they drop.

With less numbers, or even the same, its not like having "Bases" will really help them. They have no chance against us, conventionally. With friendly locals, it will be easier to fight those who fight unconventionally.

And if we do find bases of "bad guys" who are trying to harass other areas, there are multiple ways of solving this. The Iraqi military can start to take control in these areas. We can bomb these aggressive bases. The Iraqi airforce can bomb these bases(to be fair, I'm not sure what aircraft they have... but I'm pretty sure they at least have cargo planes, which can carry bombs, lol).

Any way you look at it, this won't help these bad guys, though I still don't know exactly who you mean by that.

Having a country composed of little "good guy" states and little "bad guy"
states is a recipe for the "bad guys" to win, because of the inherent
advantage of the "bad guys". They are not trying to CONSTRUCT anything,
only to BREAK the enemy's somethings. BREAKING things is much easier than
CONSTRUCTING things, and anything short of complete destruction of
the "bad guys" guarantees, at best, an internal war where the bad guys are
driven out (or killed) by a weaker force (the national forces) than would
otherwise drive them out (our forces and their national forces).

We aren't exactly splitting up the country, a la vietnam. We are simply occupying places where the people want us to. That means military protection, also. Those who don't want us will not have our aid, and will have trouble attacking those area's we are wanted in, especially because we can pool our soldiers into these places, and defend more heavily.

Besides, there's a large possibility of civil war even after we leave, unless we occupy them forever. This is a gradual step down, if they can't handle freedom, what the hell does staying longer do?

Short wars are better than long wars, and to not help them extends their
suffering.

I don't know what this is in reference to.

I totally agree. BUT, if they want us to have bases there, it is their right.We (the US and coalition forces) are not something to be "freed of". We are
to be respectfully utilized, if we choose to be utilized by others.

Well, as unlikely as I think it is for them asking for permanent bases, even if they do, I don't think we should do it. We have other things to spend money and men on, why should we pour everything we have into iraq?

One does not abandon one's friends. This is shear anti-israeli propoganda,
and would show us as the unworthy friends to others that the "America
Haters" have been trying to make us into.

How is it anti-israeli propoganda? Am I saying anything for anyone else? Anything bad about israel?

We are giving lots and lots of aid to a country in the middle east. This country is already the most powerful nation in the region. We are still giving them money. Why? What do they need it for? They can defend themselves from virtually any threat. If something crazy happened like russia nuking them or something like that, we could come and help. But pouring more money to them isn't going to prevent anything like that. I see no practical reason to keep giving israel aid.

The UN has done nothing to avert any major conflict EVER. The only aversion
to "major war", by which you seem to mean "World War", is the continued
vigilance and strength of the US and US allies (friends).

Now this is utter BS. If you honestly believe this, then I will not argue with you any more after this response, because you are truly refusing to see things.

The "corruption" scandals in the UN are just one would expect from an
organization with the incapability of doing anything constructive (with the
exception of health and refugee issues which is NOT what it was set up to
do) and with WAY too much time on it's hands.

Again, utter BS, and ruining any intelligence I percieved you had.

Agreed. And you'd be AMAZED how often other countries would request our
help.

Then we can help those, and not interfere with countries like Iraq,who didn't ask us to get involved(Sure, some kurds have been complaining for years, etc, but the large hostile group to us being there makes me think we aren't exactly wanted).

The only way to lessen the urge to become a terrorist is to have better
things to do than to become a terrorist.

This means, have a prosperous economy. How does a "poor oppressed"
country become prosperous? By having the goverment adhere to simple free
market republican concepts. Why would the powerful elites in these countries
give up power to this end? What would motivate them to do so?

Think about that one, and get back to me with your thoughts.

I disagree with your base premise, that that is the only way. Furthermore, we have no right to force nations to change their governments, economic systems, etc. If they want to, they can.

Good job Tony..!

The question is, are you willing to have a REAL discussion about the
implications of your "suggestions", or are you satisfied with your
proclamations of superiority?

If you're into discussion, and not all about the glory of telling the POTUS
what to do, let's continue.


-Iakeo

I am all for talking to the administration, but not people like you, who seem to have a definitive agenda, and don't care about anything but pushing it.

I am all for talking to the administration, but not people like you, who seem to have a definitive agenda, and don't care about anything but pushing it.


Um, that's pretty much what you'll encounter talking to the administration.

Um, that's pretty much what you'll encounter talking to the administration.

Yes, I suppose I went into a tangent, and forgot who I was talking about ^_^

However, with the administration, I am working off of the incredibly unlikely, incredibly optomistic view tha they really do want to do good for the country. And as I said, its an open letter, so if one open person reads it, then I will be happy.

There's some pretty big words in there. Maybe next time send an Open Picture Book.

You make it sound as if Israel spends money on nothing but schools and hospitals. But they also spend money on blowing up Palistinian schools and hospitals.

I don't take sides in the Israel/Palistine debate, as I see both sides as wrong and brutal, but please don't try to paint Israel as some white knights fighting off hoards of demon spawn while still having time to read to sick orphands and build houses for the homeless with Jimmy Carter.

In the United States and Israel. it's currently chic to treat brown-skinned people as Anthropomorphic Evil, whether or not they're actually Muslim.

President Bush:

Let me preface this letter saying that I try to look at all issues objectivly, and singularly when possible. I don't tout a party line, but instead, I have many views, which depending on the topic, put me hard left, hard right, or upside down to be honest.

I have seen you do things I thought good or admirable. Not very often, in my humble opinion, but at times. I believe you are a good person, who simply chooses certain things I find to be very bad decisions in the long run of things. However, I am totally willing to hear valid counter-points.

Now, let me get to my point: We are going about the war on terrorism in the wrong way. Any sophomore political science major should be able to write you essays on how terrorism cannot be deafeted with direct military force. You can attack the results, but not the causes in this way.

I call upon you to look at your decisions, look at mine, and reconsider the direction you are taking us.

I ask you to hold referendums in Iraq, and Afghanistan. If the people there wish for us to be there, let them vote for us. Hold the referendums in each region of the country, and pull out of the ones where a majority wants us out. There are no weapons of mass destruction there, no dictators holding them under a steel-toed boot, and they wouldn't be asking for us to be there in that case, which are the main given reasons for this war.

If we only stay in territories where we are wanted, our standing in the world will go up by leaps and bounds. We will show that we truly appreciate democracy. We will show that we are not being imperialist, or trying to start some sort of an empire. We are simply helping people who wish for our help, in large numbers.

We should completely pull out of these countries within the next five years, and only stay that long in the regions we are asked too. No lingering bases, etc. If we want to really acknowledge and appreciate the new democratic government of iraq, we will free them of ourselves.

We should stay out of further middle eastern affairs. Israel is a nuclear power with the most capable military in the middle east, especially defensively. Cut off our aid to them. Make them have to trade for our technology and goods like anybody else. Allow the United Nations to deal with issues in the middle east. As much as you seem to have disdain for them, they have averted major war since world war two. The good they have done for this world outdoes any corruption that has occured.

Furthermore, stay out of other countries affairs in general, unless they wish for american assistance. Just because we have the most capable military in the world, does not mean we have to constantly use it. Instead of having our soldiers die in bush wars(No pun intended, I swear), they could be here to deal with domestic issues, like terrorism, relief efforts when needed, etc.

Money gained from this general pull-out should not be thrown into the consumer market, but instead be used to help pay for the programs we are trying to fund, and bolster homeland security.

More money into homeland security, as well as much less motive for people to become terrorists, is just about the most assured way to decrease the number of terrorist attacks in America.

I hope this letter really does make it to your eyes, Mr. President. I understand you have reasons for what you do, but I can only hope you can deeply think about the choices you have made, and see that they won't work in the long run, or at least not as well as they could.

Tony Evan Carpentier
California

Nicely done. Here is a good exaple of someone with liberal leanings that can make a point without devolving into insults and name calling. You listening, Straughn?

A nice, well written letter, but I disagree. Especially with this part:

We are going about the war on terrorism in the wrong way. Any sophomore political science major should be able to write you essays on how terrorism cannot be defeated with direct military force. You can attack the results, but not the causes in this way.

Also, even though there have not been any direct referendums in Iraq and Afghanistan (or Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Haiti, or any of the shit hole countries Clinton got us involved in), the US military and US government has said time and again that if the current governments of Iraq or Afghanistan ask us to leave, we will.

You make it sound as if Israel spends money on nothing but schools and hospitals. But they also spend money on blowing up Palistinian schools and hospitals.

I don't take sides in the Israel/Palistine debate, as I see both sides as wrong and brutal, but please don't try to paint Israel as some white knights fighting off hoards of demon spawn while still having time to read to sick orphands and build houses for the homeless with Jimmy Carter.

Firstly let me assure you, I dont think Israel is a white knight, by any means. However, clearly there is no moral equivalence between intentionally killing and maiming innocent civilians through suicide bombings and the unfortunate and tragic killing of Palestinians as a result of them being thrown into the front line by the Palestinian Authority as Human Shields (a commonly deployed tactic.) As for these hospitals and schools, Israel 'destroys,' this is simply a fallacy. The Palestinians have the highest life expectantcy in all the Middle East of all the Muslim nations. As for education, Palestinian children achieve better when compared to their Muslim neighbours. To insinuate that there is some sought of parity between the 'wrong and brutal' murder of civilians and striving to maintain human life, whether Israeli or Palestinian, at all costs, is ridiculous. There simply is NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE.

Secondly I do not believe that the Palestinians are 'demon spawn.' They have shown themselves to be extremely intelligent, extremely recourceful and extremly good self publicists. However, they have been let down time and time again by their leaders. If Arafat loved his own people and sympathised with their plight more than he hated Jews and Israel, he would have accepted at Camp David and Taba. The Palestinians could and would have had the state they so desperatly want and need. Rather they have self-induced suffering, poverty, squalor and ultimately, no Palestinian state. I put it to you that I care more about establishing the Palestinian state than any Palestinian leader has ever done.

Thirdly, I ask you, does Israel reject the two state solution? No. Does the Palestinian leadership? Yes. Do Israeli text books portray Palestinians as rapists, murderers, usurperers and thieves? No. Do Palestinian newspapers regularly have pictures of medieval stereoptypical Jews sucking the blood of Palestinian children? Yes. Do Israeli-Arabs have the same rights as Israeli-Jews under the rule of law in Israel? Yes. Do Jews have the same rights as Muslims in Islamic countries? No. Are children in Palestinian schools taught that the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication? Yes. Have millions of dollars of Israeli money been spent ensuring that weapons destroy only one room and not the entire building, minimising casulties? Yes. Are both sides 'wrong and brutal'? I would like to suggest that one side's leadership wants to maximise security for its citizens and save them from terrorism. The other is hell bent on the destruction of its democratic neighbour. Israel is the former.

Firstly let me assure you, I dont think Israel is a white knight, by any means. ....


From that... to ...

Are both sides 'wrong and brutal'? I would like to suggest that one side's leadership wants to maximise security for its citizens and save them from terrorism. The other is hell bent on the destruction of its democratic neighbour. Israel is the former.

So, from 'Israel is not a white knight' to 'Israel is not wrong' (ergo, Israel is right)

Nice meandering points in the middle of it though to get you there in the end.

Yes, I believe that Israel is in the right. I do believe that a country has a right to defend itself from an aggressor. No country has faced such an onslaught of terror and aggression in history and certain measures must be taken to defend the lives of its threatened citizens. Are you really saying that defending your own citizens is wrong? I believe that it is right.
That does not mean to say I automatically agree with every single Israeli government policy. Au Contraire, I was strongly opposed to last summers Gaza disengagement.
I am also a great believer that death at the hands of another is wrong whether it be intentional i.e. suicide bombins or accidental i.e. the killing of someone in the line of fire. However, I believe Israel is not more right but less wrong. Are you suggesting that murder and manslaughter are morally equivocal?

snip

Nice try at putting words in my mouth.

I was merely showing your shift in position from your opening line to your closing- "No one is right" to "Israel is right".

Yes, I suppose I went into a tangent, and forgot who I was talking about ^_^

However, with the administration, I am working off of the incredibly unlikely, incredibly optomistic view tha they really do want to do good for the country. And as I said, its an open letter, so if one open person reads it, then I will be happy.

Well, you have a whole thread of people reading it now, so be happy :)

And please don't lose that hope.


the US military and US government has said time and again that if the current governments of Iraq or Afghanistan ask us to leave, we will.

The governments that we instaled? In Afghanistan, we gave most of the country right back to the opiate runners that the Taliban kicked out back in the day. The interm government that organized the Iraqi elections was hand picked by the US, the prime minister having been on the CIA payroll for years. And all candidates in the recent elections had to be OKed by US administarters. I don't think those people will be asking us to leave.

Besides, I'd be more impressed with a claim that if a referendum were held, and the *people* asked the US to leave, we'd leave. I say it's a decision for the people to make, not a dubious new government.


In responce to the Israel conflict, of course Israel has the moral high ground over Hamaas and the like. But Palistinian civilians die due to more then "accidents" and being used as human sheilds. The IDF has often showed little regard for the live of people in the way of their targets, like sending helecopters to fire missles at a crowded intersection that a terrorist is driving through.

Also, the horrible conditions cause by occupation and military assults reak havoc on the infestructure of Gaza and the West Bank.

And while it may not be government policy, Israeli soldiers can be just a brutal and vicious as Hamas terrorists. Hatred is deeply engrained in both sides, and people are people. That is why stories of beatings, murder, and tanks firing at school children are commin comming out of that region. Which of course recruits more bombers. Which leads to more brutal retaliation. Which recruits more bombs, which leads to......et cetera.

As I said, that is not an outright condemation of Irael, and of course they have the right to self-defence, but at the same time, both sides have done more then their fair share to fan the flames of hatred.

As a note, I have several Jewish friends who have traveled to and lived in Isreal, including the boarder area. For the most part, the two peoples (Arabs and Jews) mingle peaceably, and only want an end to the violence all around. It is a small group on both sides that makes this impossible. You were spot on when you said the Palistinians have been let down by their leaders time and time again.