• Our foreign policy Our foreign policy This letter is prompted by a call made to a radio talk show recently questioning the merit of the bombing of civilian cities in Japan in a desperate move to end the Pacific
• Our foreign policy
Our foreign policy
This letter is prompted by a call made to a radio talk show recently questioning the merit of the bombing of civilian cities in Japan in a desperate move to end the Pacific War in WW II. Not enough was said on the con side of this action when the caller had to hang up. Only pro comments were made live on air giving us the impression that we would do it again if situations call for it. Similarly, now do we react and interprete it if the enemy had bombed Honolulu or the heart of San Francisco instead of Pearl Harbor? Contrary to our Democratic beliefs in humanitarianism, we frequently come up with conflicting actions that confuse the rest of the world. Our statement most always says, “Ce La Guerre” when we do it and cry, “Foul when we are on the receiving end. We have not learned too much from our Civil War – a nation divided cannot or will not stand and we go around dividing countries all over the world. ex: Germany, Korea, China and more to come with no permanent solution.
Athough not a reality, we always use the pharse “To End All Wars.” Let’s prove to the world that we are serious and help resolve differences among nations without the use of force!
My friends and I are some of the lucky few who walked off the battle lines in Europe and lived to tell about it – WWII – hoping that this was “To End All Wars.” We will defend America again 100 percent if need be – only, let’s do it right and humanely. Let’s make our “American Dream” come true and learn to tolerate different religions and customs and live alongside all other peoples in peace.
Yasu Nakamatsu
Kapa‘a Iraq
A letter published in the Forum (Sun. Sept. 19, 2004, A8) defends the U.S. invasion of Iraq based upon the alleged complicity of Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden in the 9/11 terrorists attacks on the World Trade Center.
Saddam’s alleged complicity was supported based upon the following assertions the letter writer: contacts between Iraq officials and Osama; Osama being treated in an Iraq hospital; Iraq “had” weapons of mass destruction (gassing of the Kurds and Iranians); Saddam’s $25,000 compensation to the families of suicide bombers; and Abu Nadal, “the renowned terrorist of the 70’s and 80’s retired in Baghdad.”
If such associations justify the preemptive U.S. invasion of Iraq consider the following:
Osama is a Saudi, and his family is well connected to the Saudi Royal family (the oligarchy that rules Saudi Arabia).
Fourteen of the fifteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Members of the Saudi Royal family have provided monetary support to “charitable organizations” and “schools” supporting terrorism, and finally the renowned 70’s and 80’s terrorist and mass murder Idi Amin retired in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia as an all-expenses-paid guest of the Saudi government until his death in August of 2003.
The Saudi government’s public beheadings of adulterous women also seems a bit harsh, but perhaps not worthy of an all out preemptive invasion.
I question whether any of the tenuous associations with Osama and 9/11 by Saudi Arabia or Iraq justify putting U.S. troops in harms way by preemptively invading either (or any) country. But if a vengeful Uncle Sam is off on a preemptive terrorists goose chase based on guilt by association, what’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander, and using the letter writer’s logic, it appears Saudi Arabia should be job number one.
Ed Coll
Lihu‘e
