News-Record.com

Regardless of what the soldiers think about their actions, they are only acting as tools of politicians. The author of the letter should read Sun Tzu sometime. Soldiers can believe they're as noble and righteous as they want. That's simply a matter for morale officers to monitor. The objective reality of the situation is that America is more imperial than ever, and "freedom" is just as much a valid reason to destroy a foreign government as "living space" was.

Tony,
What oil stocks do you own?

We were there for WMD. The administration said so.
But, now the administration is spinning this as a humanitarian exercise, and is eager to distance itself from its own inaccurate WMD claims.

And, I assume you're equally offended when the administration uses the memory of your comrades to support its own agenda.

Of course, none of this diminishes the individual sacrifices of the soldiers represented by those empty boots.

I think Ian's point has a vital component to it: we are now being told that our purpose in getting rid of the old government of Iraq is to "bring freedom" to the people (just forget how many we killed in doing so).

What sort of precedent does that set? How many places are we going to be tempted to "bring freedom" to in the future, using this method?

And don't forget that we used to be great pals with Saddam. And we're today great pals with many other tyrants with no freedoms for their people. When are we going to turn on them and "free thier people from tyranny"?

This "Bush Doctrine" is pure poison for America.

I considered attending "Eyes Wide Open," but didn't because I assumed it would be the way Tony described it. There is nothing wrong with honoring our fallen soldiers as a general anti-war statement, but mixing it with politics undermines the event's sincerity.

Eric and Ian apparently have a problem with the method used to give Iraqis the right to vote in a free election. However, we must deal with the situation as it exists presently. If free elections are less acceptable than the Baathist regime of Sadaam Hussein because of the way we entered the war, what do they propose as an acceptable alternative?

Saddam Hussein's continuing quest for WMD was only one component of the reasons we went to war. If you think otherwise you're either ignorant of the facts, or you rely on the likes of Dan Rather, NPR, and CNN for the information with which to form your opinions.
Indeed, much evidence of chemical and biological weapons has been found. Evidence of Hussein's work towards developing nuclear weapons capabilities has been documented by the recent investigation.
President Clinton got widespread support from Dems when he made the same argument for action against Iraq. Where's your support now? Is it the war you're against, or are you just anti-Bush?
Our military is indeed the action arm of our country's policy, that's what it's there for.
The world is a better place for the actions of President Bush around the world. The history of this era will be written by those not even born yet, but when it is, it will be remembered as one of the most positively significant periods in American history.
Our military deserves praise and respect for the unbelievably tough job they have.

DEAR TONY SWINK, WITH SINCERE RESPECT AND GRATITUDE, I THANK YOU -- AND ALL THE MANY OTHER MEN AND WOMEN WHO HONORABLY SERVE OUR COUNTRY -- FOR PROTECTING AMERICA AND PEOPLES AROUND THE WORLD. (SURELY, IAN ("I") AND ERIC ("E") FORGOT TO MENTION THEIR THANK YOU'S TO YOU.)

I&E's CAUSTIC COMMENTS SEEM TO EMANATE FROM PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHICAL WORLD (e.g., UNATTAINABLE UTOPIA). IN REAL WORLD, EVEN WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS, CIRCUMSTANCES CAN CHANGE AND PLANS GO AWRY. (ASIDE TO I&E: PLEASE STUDY THE PREMISES OF CHAOS THEORY -- MUCH BETTER READING FOR YOU THAN SUN TZU.) FREEDOM AND PURSUANT BETTER LIVING CONDITIONS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO THE WORLD IN "ONE DAY," BUT THE SEEDS OF FREEDOM CAN BE PLANTED.

DAVID (AT 9:34A.M.), PLEASE APOLOGIZE TO TONY WHO DOES NOT DESERVE YOUR VENOMOUS STATEMENT. SAVE THAT TYPE OF TOXIN FOR THE TERROISTS WHO BEHEAD INNOCENTS AND HIDE BEHIND THE SKIRTS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN. IN THE NEAR FUTURE, AMERICA (ET AL.) WILL SOLVE THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES ENIGMA. THEN, DAVID, WHAT (AND/OR WHO) WILL YOU (AND YOUR ILK) BLAME FOR TURMOIL AND SAVAGERY IN THE WORLD?

Glenn, I love free elections. I think it would be a travesty to cut and run from Iraq, because we are responsible for the "situation as it exists presently." But I take issue with the preemptive invasion of a country that posed no direct threat to our own. You're welcome to cast this as a humanitarian rescue mission, but then it's your responsibility to define the limits of such a policy. Where do we stop? It appears that our humanitarian goals only extend to the borders of repressive governments that share common interests, and then those goals grind to a screeching halt.

And no, JayCeeNC, I'm well acquainted with the facts (as well as chaos theory, PA). Please cite the convincing evidence of WMD. David Kay, the administration's man on the ground in Iraq, found no evidence that Iraq was stockpiling conventional weapons. None.

As for your implication that I supported Clinton's position on Iraq, making me a hypocritical Bush-hater, you're wrong. Your logic and the particulars of your argument don't hold up.

P. Annie (WHO SHOULD PLEASE STOP SHOUTING), my disagreement with civilian-led policy has nothing to do with my appreciation of our troops. And reality? I grasp it quite well, thanks, even without your lecture.

Folks, the simple fact is that it is possible to disagree with the administration's policy of preemptive war, and at the same time hold the men and women who serve in the armed services in the highest regard, and appreciate their sacrifices (as the last sentence of my previous post implied). You are welcome to believe that civilian and military policy are necessarily one and the same, but I suspect that much of the disagreement you would get over this wouldn't come from utopian pseuso-philosphers, but from the military commanders whose realistic assessments of the situation in Iraq have been consistently shot down by their more ideological civilian counterparts.

I thank Mr. Swink for his service to our country. Also, for caring enough to visit the aforementioned exhibit and the time it took him to write a well articulated letter to the editor.

His 'tear', however, is not generous enough. Why incur the deaths of Americans for Iraq? There are many other parts of the world in more dire straits; see Sudan, for example. Obviously, Sudan does not have natural resources, ports, or geographical importance that the neocons in office crave.

If Americans, like Mr. Swink, wish to send our young men and women to fight for freedom, then we should start by besieging Washington, D.C.
Oust Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and all other purveyors of the so-called Patriot Act and restore the Constitution.

By the way, instead of helping the Iraqi people write a Constitution, let's just give them ours.
We're not using it anymore.

I am grateful to Mr. Swink for letting us know of the anti war, anti USA theme of the boots display. I suspected as much but the N&W never bothered to let readers in on the secret.

As you can see, Tony, when a believer dares to express his love and devotion to our country, his fellow man and to helping suppressed people in other countries win freedom, the scowling, growling, Godless haters come creeping forward; cowardly hiding behind aliases casting their vile vomit over everything positive that is accomplished.

This ilk, like Stephen, is not willing to let people to make choices by open election. He just wants to make a terrorist raid on our elected government

Ian, David Kay's investigation supported all the original intelligence about WMD's. Biological, chemical, conventional banned missiles, etc. You'd better go back and read it and research it, don't take all the Rather-Blather as gospel.
The fact remains that Democratic representatives, including Kerry, et al, supported Clinton's assertion that Saddam was developing nuclear capability, Saddam had to be stopped, etc. Kerry called for immediate action. But the Democrats seem to have forgotten their fervor when it was a Republican who finally had the courage to act rather than just talk.

Freedom cannot be "given" to a people. It must first be earned by that people.

Because the freedom of self-rule will inevitably self-destruct without the necessity of self-discipline. Give a man a gun and he can kill instantly. Make that man spend years learning a martial art and he will not only know how to kill instantly, he will know how *not* to kill at all. The time and effort invested in gaining that skill couples discipline to his desire. He then gains something that he may not *need* to use to kill another, but it nonetheless becomes a tool that refines him as a person.

If you get what you want without knowing who you are first, you invariably receive something that will destroy you in the end. But if you *do* know yourself - with all its limits and flaws - you will know how to ask for something that you can use that will make you stronger.

The Iraqi people have been given freedom and power. But they did not earn them of their own accord. As such, they possess no innate wisdom on what to do with these things: how to be free and how NOT to be free. Had they toppled Saddam on their own, they would be a free people in the truest sense. But since we "gave" them freedom, the United States will be ultimately responsible for all failures that happen in that country...

...and it will fail. And they will blame us for that failure.

In another ten years Iraq will be much like Yugoslavia was in the early 90s: a shattered realm of warring factions. For all the evil and cruelty that the man is known for, Saddam Hussein *did* have one positive effect on his country. That being, much as Tito kept the ethnic groups of Yugoslavia in perpetual check, so did Saddam prevent the Kurds, the Shiites, the Sunnis etc. from tearing Iraq apart.

Ironically, Iraq was a conglomerate of smaller regions left over from the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, just as Yugoslavia was carved from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. 'Tis a shame that blame for the present situation must ultimately be cast on the man who is considered most responsible for the idea of creating modern Iraq to begin with: Winston Churchill.

But hey, nobody's perfect, right?