Letters

Letters 08-31-2015

Inalienable Rights This is a response to the “No More State Theatre” in your August 24th edition. I think I will not be the only response to this pathetic and narrow-minded letter that seems rather out of place in the northern Michigan that I know. To think we will not be getting your 25 cents for the movie you refused to see, but more importantly we will be without your “two cents” on your thoughts of a marriage at the State Theatre...

Enthusiastically Democratic Since I was one of the approximately 160 people present at when Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 in Charlevoix, I was surprised to read in a letter to Northern Express that there was a “rather muted” response to Debbie’s announcement that she has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president...

Not Hurting I surely think the State Theatre will survive not having the homophobic presence of Colleen Smith and her family attend any matinees. I think “Ms.” Smith might also want to make sure that any medical personnel, bank staff, grocery store staff, waiters and/or waitress, etc. are not homosexual before accepting any service or product from them...

Stay Home I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read the letter of the extremely homophobic, “disgusted” writer. She now refuses to patronize the State Theatre because she evidently feels that its confines have been poisoned by the gay wedding ceremony held there...

Keep Away In response to Colleen Smith of Cadillac who refused to bring her family to the State Theatre because there was a gay wedding there: Keep your 25 cents and your family out of Traverse City...

Celebrating Moore And A Theatre I was 10 years old when I had the privilege to see my first film at the State Theatre. I will never forget that experience. The screen was almost the size of my bedroom I shared with my older sister. The bursting sounds made me believe I was part of the film...

Outdated Thinking This letter is in response to Colleen Smith. She made public her choice to no longer go to the State Theater due to the fact that “some homosexuals” got married there. I’m not outraged by her choice; we don’t need any more hateful, self-righteous bigots in our town. She can keep her 25 cents...

Mackinac Pipeline Must Be Shut Down Crude oil flowing through Enbridge’s 60-yearold pipeline beneath the Mackinac Straits and the largest collection of fresh water on the planet should be a serious concern for every resident of the USA and Canada. Enbridge has a very “accident” prone track record...

Your Rights To Colleen, who wrote about the State Theatre: Let me thank you for sharing your views; I think most of us are well in support of the first amendment, because as you know- it gives everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. I also wanted to thank Northern Express for not shutting down these types of letters right at the source but rather giving the community a platform for education...

No Role Model [Fascinating Person from last week’s issue] Jada quoted: “I want to be a role model for girls who are interested in being in the outdoors.” I enjoy being in the outdoors, but I don’t want to kill animals for trophy...

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · Wrong side of the coin...
. . . .

Wrong side of the coin 4/11/11

Stephen Tuttle - April 11th, 2011
Wrong Side of the Coin
American presidents have a very steep learning curve when it comes to
sending our young men and women into harm’s way thousands of miles from
home. It appears they simply cannot resist the urge to prove how tough
they are.
So, now we have Libya to add to the growing list of places we just
absolutely, positively had to go and bomb.
President Obama hung in there longer than most, resisting the
temptation to blow up some stuff as long as he could. It’s not as if
he didn’t get plenty of flak from all sides while making up his mind.
Some on the right excoriated him for delaying his decision. Others on
the right criticized him for having done anything at all. Those on the
left were similarly critical and for the same reasons – should have
acted sooner or shouldn’t have acted at all.
In the end, we have a kind of nascent Obama Doctrine. If civilians are
at risk from their own government and the country or region is of vital
strategic importance to us (or, one presumes, our omnipotent
corporations) then we’re likely to stick our noses into whatever
problems they might be having. And, of course, there has to be some
kind of multi-country coalition allowing us to pretend it isn’t just us
doing the heavy lifting.
In Libya, according to our leaders, we’re not so much trying to get rid
of their dictator, Muamar Gaddafi (Kaddhafi? Kaddafi? Qaddafi?
Gaddhafi?). No, not at all. We’re not interested in regime change.
On the other hand, we’d very much like him to leave and haven’t been
afraid to say so. But we’re not out to get him.
No, we’re just protecting civilians from what, we’re told, would have
been a bloodbath carried out by Libyan security forces, imported
mercenaries and elements of the Libyan military.
Libya, tucked in between Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and the Mediterranean
Sea, became a kind of peripheral player in the quick revolutions that
took place in Egypt and Tunisia. When the demonstrations started in
Tripoli and elsewhere Gaddafi had a less gentle response than quietly
leaving.
One other thing – Libya has more oil than any other African country.
So, we cobbled together a coalition of NATO countries and unleashed our
Tomahawk missiles and smart bombs and commenced with the destruction.
The problems here are fairly obvious. We’re already mired in
Afghanistan, the longest military engagement in U.S. history and we’re
still mired in Iraq, the second longest military engagement in U.S.
history. With nearly 6,000 deaths, and counting, and about $1 trillion
spent, and counting, we’re already waist deep in that quicksand with no
rescue in sight.
Even the briefest foray into Libya creates additional billions in costs
and stretches our actual combat capabilities perilously thin. We’re
now told our combat role has ended, that our NATO coalition is in
charge and we’ve taken support roles. The president has not ruled out
helping arm the rebels though we’re not taking sides, mind you. Just
leveling the playing field.
And we absolutely, positively will not be sending combat ground troops.
No boots on the ground on President Obama’s and Secretary of Defense
Gates’ watches. One then supposes the CIA operatives we’ve already sent
and are currently on the ground in Libya are wearing Italian loafers or
flip-flops or something other than boots.
This is pretty close to insanity. The rebels, who we may or may not
support depending on the day of the week and the hour of the day, have
no command and control structure, no identifiable leaders, no funding
source, no training capabilities. They don’t even know how to use the
weapons they already have and would have not the least clue how to use
modern weapons supplied by us or other NATO countries. Training them
would means lots of boots on the ground for a long time.
Worse still, we’ve absolutely no clue of an outcome even if the rebels
win and He Whose Name Cannot Be Spelled goes skittering off with his
purloined billions. We’re not even sure who the “good guys” might be
and there are plenty of groups willing to fill a Libyan leadership void
who we’d likely consider the “bad guys.”
If the so-called Obama doctrine leads us to prevent civilian massacres
in areas of strategic interest then where the hell have we been in the
civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Why isn’t a country
with Africa’s richest natural resources, nearly all of which are
completely unexploited, considered of strategic interest to us? The
Congo death toll is now nearing a staggering 5.5 million, the vast
majority of whom were civilians. It’s the worst such blood bath since
World War II and we and the U.N. and everybody else have stood idly by
as the horrendous carnage goes on day after day. Where are our
humanitarian instincts there?
For that matter, what about Bahrain or Qatar or Yemen or the Ivory
Coast or any of the couple of dozen other countries currently engaged
in some kind of civil war or genocide or other form of evil? If
strategic importance and humanitarian considerations are our primary
objectives then why, oh why, do we continue to coddle the repressive
and murderous thugs from the House of Saud currently running Saudi
Arabia?
We’re engaged in folly; a belief we can somehow alter the outcome of
what are essentially centuries old tribal civil wars in the Middle
East. We rationalize our ongoing involvement by emphasizing the evils
of the leaders whose countries we attack and the horrors they have
perpetrated on their own people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of
leaders who fit that description. So far, we’ve inserted ourselves
into situations in which we can neither predict nor control the
outcome.
The sad fact is we could win every battle and still lose every war.
That’s not a doctrine. It’s a coin-flip with a two-headed coin and we
call “tails” every time.





















 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close