We are not aggressors
I am not writing in to defend our position in Iraq. I am however critical of Ruth Hertzberg’s characterization of the United States as an “imperialist aggressor” (Daily Mail, Dec. 1). She injuriously states this three times in a few short paragraphs. Her inaccurate redundancy is ill-founded.An imperialist aggressor would not allow free elections to take place, would not encourage the occupied country’s involvement, would not repair power, water and other infrastructure for the direct benefit of its citizens. The aggressor nation would, however, most certainly seize all the available assets and control of its natural resources, in keeping with its evil imperialistic philosophy.Ruth Hertzberg’s mischaracterizations of our mission in Iraq seems to follow a pattern by those critics, proving ones emotions can adversely influence ones ability to think rationally.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.