News-Record.com

Now I would like to make a suggestion to the Editor: Some people have said they wanted the cartoons published to show what kind of people we were at war with. The cartoons would have just given the idea that the Muslims are beyond contempt and better laughed at. This would be a very serious mistake. What the paper could do is publish a series of articles on just what the Muslims have done over say the last 20 years. I don’t mean the moderate Muslims or so-called peaceful Muslims if there are any which I am starting to wonder about, but the Hamas and other groups. A time line of their activities around the world. Then follow that up with an explanation of just what your staff can determine it is that they want. Is it a case of wishing to dominate the world? Is our freedom of speech being curtailed out of fear of reprisal and if so why are we letting it happen? Finally, give us more information on the current leader of Iran. Who is he and what are his goals. I have been reading that he believes 12th. Iman will return when the world is rid of infidels and he feels it will be during his lifetime and that he can make it happen by using nuclear weapons against the world? Is there any basis for this? I am sure if you do this it will certainly offend the Muslim community but in view of what is happening the public needs to know and understand and this should override any groups taking offence simply because they are embarrassed by the truth being exposed. Oh, and PLEASE do not get a Muslim to wrote these articles. We have heard from them enough telling us that Islam is not about what is happening but defending the right of the Islamist to riot and bomb and kill. Get Americans with no hyphen (as in Muslim-Americans) to write the articles for Americans.

I think if you do this it will go a long way in showing that fear was not at all your motive for not publishing the cartoons, and it will be a real public service now that the riots have gotten the world’s attention. Sincerely

Do you get the feeling that most citizens don't "feel" like we're at war?

The war was hardly declared by an act of Congress. It's more of a one-man show that affects thousands and thousands of mostly young Americans and their families but not most Americans.

We aren't being asked to sacrifice (tax cuts instead). We're not being asked to conserve (no greenhouses 'r us). We're not selling war bonds or turning in scrap metal for missiles. We've hardly had a war like this one before.

(My) sarcasm aside, we support our troops in public (the knee-jerk Nam thing); we applaud in large gatherings (the Superbowl got slammed for no Vet tribute); but heck, we're not even asked to fly our flags.

I bet most young 'uns can't tell you what a "gold-star mother" is except if they mock Cindy Sheehan.

We don't talk about it in school except when a soldier comes home to thank a class for writing because any opinion on the war is political and we don't want that in school.

This is unlike any other war the US has been involved in - we weren't attacked by this country.

Nope, the war isn't over (I hope it will be soon) and we're so enmeshed in nation building without a plan that folks are sick and tired of hearing about our ineptitude at strategy, supplying troops, disappearing money, no-bid contracts, and "insurgents," (a term that is beyond stupid), that news coverage hardly can be only about a battle without involving politics.

Nope, this isn't our fathers' war and neither is the press coverage.

This is unlike any other war the US has been involved in - we weren't attacked by this country.

We weren't attacked in the Mexican-American War, Korean War, Vietnam War or the first Gulf War either.

...nor were we theatened... nor did we choose to expand into their land ... nor did the UN ask us to help ...

This is the war to clean up Daddy's mess.

Note to Sue:

You cannot "support our troops" without supporting their mission.......

Nor were we attacked by Nazi Germany...but Hitler was a tyrant that needed to be stopped, so we stepped up and did the right thing.
'Nuff said.

jaycee, have you forgotten Pearl Harbor? An Axis is an Axis. All for one and in that case, one -- certainly -- for all.

Untrue, bubba, and that's the lesson of Vietnam. You can love and support your military young men and women (and heck, even the older ones) and work at home to stop a perhaps illegal, ill-thought-out, and ill-strategized 'war.' It's a talking point that you should really stop repeating without thinking about: you can't make "troop-haters" out of those who don't like this war. It's an illegitimate division and we're not going to stand by and have it foist upon us by masses who retype what they're told.

(Whew, that was strong, and don't take it personally, bubba. Being called a "troop-disliker" or that I can't support troops while despising this war or believing it to be illegitimate just roasts my roils.)

Jaycee, We were attacked by Germany prior to the US involvement in WW2. German submarines were firing upon American flagged passenger and freighter ships killing American civilians, which is what tilted the balance of American public opinion in favor of opposing Germany instead of siding with the Axis powers. And remember: President George Bush's grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush was santioned by CONGRESS for selling arms materials to Hitler almost two years after the US entered WW2.

Bubba said, "You cannot "support our troops" without supporting their mission......."

Bubba, I have family serving in Iraq right now and you DAMN WELL BETTER BELIEVE I support the soldiers of my family as well as the rest of the troops fighting this redicilous war. And the truth be told: the members of my family who are serving in Iraq today have all told me they are against the war in Iraq. Bubba, perhaps you'd like to explain to my nephews and nieces in Iraq how you call sending them to get their heads blown off is "supporting our troups."

But you'd best be sure they're not carrying their M-16s when you tell 'em.

Doug, I deleted your comment because of your use of profanity. Feel free to repost it without the unnecessary personal assault.

Sorry, Billy and Sue. You are wrong. You can not "support our troops" without supporting their mission.

Here is why, courtesy of Dennis Prager:

"Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."

If you still think you "support our troops" and you don't support the war, read what Joel Stein says about the topic:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Key point:

"But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."

I disagree with him, but I commend him for his intellectual honesty.

Here is the link to the entire Dennis Prager article referenced above.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-7_12_05_DP.html

Read the entire piece.

It is not that one dislikes the war, it is the fact that there is a very fine line on how one expresses their dislike to the war without giving aide and comfort to the enemy. That was my biggest gripe with protesters during Vietnam and it is the same now.

Bubba,
You make the mistaken assumption that I am a pacifist-- I'm not. I'm not really a liberal either, I just play one on my blog because I'm pissed-off at the Bush Administration just like I was pissed-off at Clinton. But I have family in Iraq who have expressed to me that they believe the war they are fighting is wrong. Therefore, I cannot support the war in Iraq.

Now as for Afghanistan-- that was a rightous cause for an invasion if there ever was one. Too bad we didn't stick it out.

Again, I want you to tell my neices and nephews who are currently on the ground in Iraq, how sending them to get their heads blown off in an unjust war is "supporting our troops."

Could it be that the media/press only views the war on terror to be confined to Iraq? If there is no "bad news" to report from Iraq, no sensational news to report then perhaps it is no longer viable. Could it be that the media does not recognize a global war on terror is now the bigger picture and Iraq only one small part of it? Could it be that the providers of the news can not recognize that what is occurring in Indonesia, the Philippines, other SEA countries is all very connected and is the actual war on terror? Can they not make the connection with what is occurring in Sudan/Dufar is the same war on terror being waged by Islamist on civilians and now the AU corps that is being waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other eastern European "stans"
Perhaps when the media decides to detach itself from the "politically correct" form of reporting and go back to "real news" reporting and connecting the dots one will find more "real" news on this global war on terror. Iraq will then be seen as it is, only a part of the bigger picture.

Billy...poet,

You're wrong about Afghanistan.

We're still in Afghanistan, and still guiding the democratically elected government toward stability.

As you'll recall our Special Ops forces accomplished in four months in Afgh. what the Ruskies were unable to do in ten years.

Sue,

Deal with Daddy's mess? What did Daddy (Bush 41) mess up?

"..... how sending them to get their heads blown off in an unjust war is "supporting our troops.""

The reason that "troops" exist is to go to war when (hopefully never) necessary, Billy. Otherwise, there is no need for "troops".

"Supporting our troops", ONCE THEY ARE COMMITTED TO WAR, is to allow them to complete their mission in the most effiecent and effective manner so that they may return home as soon as possible.

You may well indeed support those individuals in your family who are in harm's way, and send them your thoughts and prayers for their safe haven, but you are not "supporting our troops". There is a difference.

Jon, Daddy Bush screwed up by allowing the appeasers to talk him into not going all the way to Bagdad and taking out Saddam in Gulf War I as the Iraqi people begged us to do. That was a big time mistake and now his son must pay the price as well as mine and thousand of other parents who have had or have now sons and daughters in Iraq.

Why is it that some people who think that this is an "unjust war" think we can just walk away from it all, with no extenuating consequences?

Can they not envision the geometric expansion of the difficulties that our nation would face if that unfortunate event were to happen?

Hmmmmm....early onset Oldtimers on my part.....

Substitute "extraordinary" for "extenuating" in my last post. "Extenuate" would have been proper if I had written the original sentence that I intended.

Mr. P,

I was under the impression that Sue was against Bush 43 going into Iraq but when she stated, "This is the war to clean up Daddy's mess," I got the impression she's saying it was necessary for us to invade Iraq since Bush 41 hadn't, which contravenes her statements about this being an unjust war.

Oh well, she's said so much I guess she got confused.

Anyway, I agree with you that Bush 41 should have continued to Baghdad in 1990 to complete the job. Margaret Thatcher was always concerned that 41 had "wobbly knees" and turns out she was right.

Bubba, that's called "sometimers" and we all suffer from it from time to time especially us "oldtimers".
Us oldtimers overlook misspellings and dangling participles, missed comma's, lack of punctuation and such, that is unless you are a former English teacher and those folks never forget, at least never forget how to correct others.

Although I may have an intellectual interlude once or twice (I forget which), invading Iraq to take "out" Hussein because his father didn't, wouldn't or couldn't, doubles the lack of justification for this war. Although no one supports Hussein's atrocities, there are worse dictators in the world (without oil) and we're not "intervening" there.

I love the way commenters here try to twist what others say, but I know what I said, so let's make clear for you. The war wasn't necessary. The reasons for it were specious. The "intelligence" was flawed. It was pre-decided to wage this war. I feel so sorry for those who think being "for" it is patriotic and being against it is, well, the opposite of that.

That sort of thinking is why Orwell wrote his book, why (in part) Hitler and other despots rose to power, and why we're so polarized in this country. Mass belief with unquestioning loyalty, with vituperative aspersion on those who demand answers, and belief in spite of facts is the grease on the slippery slope.

And I haven't taught English since 1982 but I still know that plurals, like produce's "comma's," don't take apostrophes.

"Patriotism", as you want to define it, has nothing to do with the situation, Sue.

We are involved in a conflict unlike any other this nation has faced, and the old "rules" no longer apply, mainly because the agressors/attackers don't play by them any more. This conflict involves strategy and tactics that are outside the parameters that some people want to apply to this situation. To think that we can operate on a "business as usual" basis is pure folly, and outright dangerous.

Some of us "get it", others "don't get it".......when the others who "don't get it" finally come to their senses, it may be too late.

Dang Bubba, musta stepped all over Sue's toes for there she is correcting those who she does not agree with. Of course I am use to having my writing corrected. Being married to an editor, what can I expect. I don't pay much attention to her either but at least she corrects me without the arrogance . So Sue I will just say, who give a rats! I ain't impressed!

And Sue, if Bush the elder had not caved into the appeasers and finished the job, we wouldn't be writing about this today now would we?

Sue,

No one has tried to twist your words.

You could be truthful with us. Just admit that you hate everything that's Bush related. And you and your kind rejoice inwardly when things turn ugly in Iraq because you don't want Bush's foreign policy to be successful so that your party can get back in power.

What irks me is when you make such inane statements that you support our troops but not the war. Nope, that dog won't hunt.

Interesting insights in this article.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5249