Letters To The Editor, Continued; June 11; Wars’ Costs Burden Future Generatiions
Wars' Costs Burden Future Generations
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In the uproar over the burden of debt resulting from the recent federal financial rescue spending, some have overlooked the enormous debt incurred by the Iraq war, which has now spawned the Afghanistan-Pakistan war. The Iraq war was foisted upon credulous American citizens and legislators by what has been proven to be appalling, reprehensible lies and deceptions by the Bush administration.
The cost of these wars is estimated conservatively at $3 trillion, which does not begin to count many collateral costs, while the financial rescue expenditure so far is about an equal amount, according to government reports. The government and taxpayers can recover some of the rescue spending as the economy recovers, but the costs of these wars -- human and financial -- are lost forever.
Who likes being forced to spend our hard-earned taxes to save corporations, brokerages, and banks from their own greed and ignorance? Of course taxpayers are furious! But when we talk about the financial burdens the next generation must bear, we must include this inherited gigantic war debt, and the lost sons, sisters, brothers, and fathers who will not be alive to love or contribute to their families or to our collective future financial strength. This war debt burden includes the lost lives of innocent victims of these wars abroad and the immense loss of their countries' financial, environmental, and social stability. These wars cannot be "won" and will be a drag on us and the world for decades to come.
Virginia Tyack.
Richmond.
News Downplayed GOP Convention
Editor, Times-Dispatch: After reading the news report, "Cuccinelli, Bolling Join GOP Ticket," by Tyler Whitley and Jeff Schapiro on the Republican state convention, I wondered what convention they had attended. They reported some factual information, but it was interspersed with comments such as "is considered" without saying by whom. The terms "activists" and "delegates" also were used to report general conclusions which to me are merely disguised opinions. Opinions belong on the Op/Ed page. Which activists -- and how many? Which delegates -- and how many?
No mention whatsoever was made of the keynote speaker, Sean Hannity. No mention whatsoever of the address by the new American citizen and Virginia Tech graduate who spoke and simply brought the house down. If not a news story, that is surely a story that deserves feature presentation.
Be certain that I will be comparing their reporting of the Democratic primary. And please -- keep the general conclusions to a minimum.
Joan G. Bice.
Petersburg.
Churches, Take Care What You Preach
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Anti-choice advocates stand on the wrong side of history. As society and science advance, there will come to be more and more ways for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies. And, as world family incomes rise, more and more women will demand freedom from the responsibilities and expense of feeding and caring for unwanted children. World population growth will make abortion necessary for the prevention of human starvation and suffering.
The truth and inevitability of this scenario is driving some God-fearing abortion foes batty. The killing of a doctor who provided controversial abortions stands as a sad reminder of how judgmental and obsessed these persons are becoming. When a group of people, egged on by their ministers and/or their Bibles, comes to believe that it is their moral duty to fight against inevitable social forces, a tremendous source of frustration, anger, and hatred is created.
Can we prevent the violent clash of wills this conflict portends? I see only one way. Churches advocating rigid theologies must realize that they are producing rigid, moralistic, judgmental, and hateful persons and find ways to produce persons who will work peacefully to advance worldwide family planning. Many people have doubts about the hereafter but see wisdom in the non-judgmental and compassionate ways of Jesus. We need the support of everyone if we are to create a life on Earth that is peaceful and full of goodwill.
John G. Schuiteman.
Ashland.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
These ObamoBots are too funny. They worry about a teaspoon of spending under President Bush (as most of us are), but they chose to ignore the new tanker truck of spending under their inexperienced leader.
I bet if you presented Fact #1 to the writer of that letter, her head would explode with confusion.
What a great opportunity for the pro-abortion community to paint Christians as the murderers of abortion providers!! Funny thing, over 20 years, 5 abortion providers have been murdered by nut jobs vs. 49 million unborn children who have been aborted, or, as a liberal can relate to it, they were “removed from future tax rolls”.
We have no problem with food resources in the world. The only place where there is starvation, it is by design by a government - the availability of food isn’t a problem as it can be transported from one point in the world to another point in the world - if the receiving government is cooperative. This overpopulation nonsense has been going on since the publication of “The Population Bomb” - a book that has, by events, been totally discredited.
Ms. Tyack - the war in Afghanistan came before the war in Iraq. Look, Bush is gone and the new president isn’t exactly an upgrade - although talking about Bush certainly makes for a great distraction from the horrible job Obama is doing.
The killing of this doctor was murder and the shooter should receive the death penalty. This lunatic does not represent Christians. Christians do not condone this doctor’s murder any more than we condone the murder of innocent babies.
Having said that, the writer is absoluely wrong is saying we should not fight against “inevitable social forces”. Can we say Hitler?
Sometimes what has become acceptable in society is worth fighting against. A pregnancy is a child, and it is every bit my moral duty to fight
(using non-violent methods) against a society that allows killing even one. And I will not apologize or seek to justfy murder by claiming ovepopulation.
If women want to be free of the expense of raising children, the very science Ms. Bivce speaks of has given them the birth control pill, condomns, and tubal ligation. And of course there is the non-scientific old fashioned method - keeping your legs closed.
Mr. Schuiteman, you say as incomes rise women will want to be freed from the burden of bearing children. You say to prevent ‘starvation and suffering’ the solution is to abort a child. You go on to speak of rigid, moralistic, judgmental and hateful people who happen to be those who do not agree with you. Do you not see the moral poverty in what you are saying? Are you that blind to what your words say about your heart? You speak of a non-judgmental and compassionate Jesus as justification for your views. Sir, who will judge at the Resurrection? Scripture speaks of God knowing us in the womb. That being the case, is not Jesus’ compassion extended to those in the womb? You want to ‘create a life on Earth that is peaceful and full of goodwill’ by death. I’m not angry. I am deeply sorrowful that the callousness and moral myopia of your letter pervades our culture. It is a culture of selfishness and death.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement