Letter: The limitations of U.S. might

Posted 8/9/17

If indeed 'Might can make right' as claimed in an Aug. 3 letter, would not 1940's Germany and Japan have been the most righteous nations on earth?

How has the so-called 'strength' …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Don't have an ID?


Print subscribers

If you're a print subscriber, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one.

Non-subscribers

Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.

If you’re a print subscriber or made a voluntary contribution in Nov. 2016-2017, but do not yet have an online account, click here to create one at no additional charge. VIP Digital Access Includes access to all websites


Our print publications are advertiser supported. For those wishing to access our content online, we have implemented a small charge so we may continue to provide our valued readers and community with unique, high quality local content. Thank you for supporting your local newspaper.

Letter: The limitations of U.S. might

Posted

If indeed 'Might can make right' as claimed in an Aug. 3 letter, would not 1940's Germany and Japan have been the most righteous nations on earth?

How has the so-called 'strength' exerted by the US over the past 30 years, all in the name of peace, improved the lot of those battered civilians of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Syria, and already wretched Yemen, who have seen their nations wrecked by American aggressive actions?

Weren't 4 million collateral civilian deaths in the Greater Middle East between 1991 and 2015 (according to Middle East Eye) enough to provide 'liberty and justice for all'  of the earth's inhabitants?

So how can the commissioning of an obsolescent 100,000-ton floating chunk of metal (aka the USS Ford) costing billions over budget address any of the land wars in which the U.S. is (or soon will be) voluntarily enmeshed, or the debt burden of our children?

As China, for example, can now destroy any ship within 1500 miles of its coast using land based missiles, how many of those gullibles cheering the Ford, realize that no sane commander would commit an asset to battle, which he could not afford to lose?

In an actual Pacific war, is not the Ford already inferior to our 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' the Island of Guam?

Would not the Ford be better renamed: 'The USS Edsel'?

Russ Haas,

Golden

Comments

No comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment