You are sending a link to...
Spade as spade
Calling things by their most accurate name sometimes means the difference between life and death. Mushroom aficionados know this. So does the writer of
this letter-to-the-editor in today's New York Post:
(THE ISSUE: The Supreme Court decision striking down military tribunals for Gitmo detainees.)
While I usually am in agreement with John Podhoretz, there is one issue I have with his articles that mention the war we're currently engaged in ("Uniting the Right," PostOpinion, July 3).
He, like so many, refers to this war as the War on Terror. I highly disagree with this nomenclature.
This is not a war on terror. The use of terror is a tactic in battle, but not the overriding reason that our enemies wage this war.
This is a war against our very way of life, fought by Islamists who seek to overtake the world and remake it in their image.
I suggest renaming this conflict The War against Western Civilization.
Maybe if people understand the true reasons we are fighting, more would support the war and what we stand for.
Hal Frydman
Ozone Park
Frydman's argument is just fine, though "The War against Western Civilization" I think is a bit unwieldy. Besides, in the West, the number of people who could tell you why they live in a civilization--or even what defines civilization--is dwindling rapidly. How to grab their attention? Should we hold a nationwide contest?
The letter which follows Frydman's shows just how muddled are the minds of those who come from a cynical-Left position characterized by late-Marxist nomenclature--and shows how necessary is arriving at the right name for this war. Leaving definitions to the Left, we are left with some variation of "The Oil Wars," which, using this sole criteria, began soon after the first barrel was extracted from the ground in the 19th Century:
Podhoretz reprises that tired old canard as a cover for Republican failure in Iraq: Blame the "liberal media" and "activist judges" on the Supreme Court.
Sorry, but we're not buying the Kool-Aid Podhoretz is selling.
No amount of spin can divert attention from the pernicious lies that got us into this quagmire.
"Fighting to establish a democracy in Iraq"? I thought we charged in there because of weapons of mass destruction.
Why the old bait-and-switch? Why not just admit that President Bush & Co. plan to keep us there until the last drop of oil is extracted?
Vaughn A. Carney
Stowe, Vt.
Vermont, eh? Would have guessed?
My vote goes to World War IV, though some may argue that the Cold War doesn't qualify as WW III. (And those of us familiar with the world wars in which Britain and France faced off might add a couple Roman numerals.) WW IV works for me for at least two reasons: it's relatively accurate and it will resonate with the rising generations who were touched more deeply by 9/11 (and, in Britain, 7/7?) than was immediately apparent. Widespread reports of increasing political conservativism among secondary school students may be a clue to just how deeply the chord was struck.
But, perhaps,
The World War will suffice. It would be hard to find many on either side who might disagree. On whose side in this war are our letter writers?
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
%20(2).jpg)
.jpg)
