Why are we handcuffing troops in Afghanistan?
To the editor:
I thought most of the comparisons of Afghanistan to Vietnam were exaggerated -- until the Review-Journal printed the story Sept. 9 of Marines ambushed by Taliban insurgents.
Outgunned and running out of ammo, they requested support numerous times, but were refused each time by commanders more worried about the possibility of "civilian casualties" than about their own men. As a result, two brave Marines were killed and others were injured.
These men needed help, and they were given the shaft. Heaven forbid that civilians be injured in any military operation, but it does happen.
Our military already takes great pains to try and prevent civilian casualties, whereas the Taliban take great pains to cause civilian casualties by operating in areas which make civilian casualties a certainty. They even kill the civilians themselves. If our leaders are willing to serve up our brave sons and daughters as cannon fodder for the Taliban for no other reason than to protect their careers, then we have the wrong people leading us.
Our troops are there to accomplish a mission, and if our "leaders" aren't willing to let them do what they have to do without undue risk to themselves, then bring them home.
I'm a retired military man, and my son is currently serving in Afghanistan along with many other brave volunteers from Nevada. If you feel as I do, then write, e-mail or call your congressional representatives and let them know how you feel.
Roger Ouellette
LAS VEGAS
Full responsibility
To the editor:
So the president says, "I will take responsibility for my health care program." That's just great. What a leader. I will be saddled with a worthless dollar, trillions of dollars of debt and a health care system inferior to any I have known in my 72 years, but the president will take responsibility for the mess. I feel so much better.
By the way, Mr. President, instead of spending more taxpayer dollars flying to Minnesota to speak to 15,000 of your cronies this weekend, you could have stayed home in D.C. and listened to tens of thousands of Americans.
Just an afterthought.
Mike Garrison
HENDERSON
Hated Americans
To the editor:
In his Monday letter, Marc Jeric wrote of President Obama's ignorance of the background of the 9/11 terrorists. I am afraid Mr. Jeric misses the point, which is, as described in the book, "The Ugly American," the arrogance of many Americans -- or better described as North Americans, as America extends from the northern tip of Alaska to the southern tip of Chile -- for which we are hated.
To improve or change our negative image, we do need to travel abroad or send emissaries who will project a more humane image. The Peace Corps, touted by the late President Kennedy, was of this fashion. We have Doctors without Borders, Habitat for Humanity, etc., all imparting ideas and demonstrating our other side.
It was not only the terrorists participating in the attack who showed their anger. They, as most leaders of revolts, represented the moods of the masses, the embittered children of the world. They sow the seeds of discontent, and the upper class, they with the wherewithal to obtain weapons, knowledge and leadership ability, are able to overthrow the oppressors.
William V. Lofton
LAS VEGAS
It takes money
To the editor:
In response to Sean Scott's Friday letter to the editor, in which he said nobody is dying for lack of health care in America:
The 1986 federal law that he is talking about provides for acute care. Examples of acute care would be people injured in a car accident or suffering a heart attack. It does not provide for treatment of chronic disease. Cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease are examples of chronic ailments that you won't get treated for in an emergency room. Yet these are also ailments that are incredibly expensive to treat and are killing many Americans.
The combination of a lack of insurance and sky-high costs is what is contributing to premature death for many people.
I sometimes wonder if people such as Mr. Scott actually read the Review-Journal on a regular basis. An article in the newspaper several months ago reported how UCLA wanted $600,000 for a man's heart transplant. Medicare would pay only $480,000, leaving the patient with a $120,000 co-pay.
Another article told the story of a woman who is a health reform advocate. Her brother needed $1 million for his heart operation, and he died because he couldn't come up with the money.
The medications for treating chronic diseases like cancer, Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis cost a fortune. I know people who are suffering from the above illnesses, and the costs involved in treating them are greater than what they're paying for their homes and cars combined.
When medical procedures and treatments are as costly as the ones I just mentioned, they are beyond the reach of the vast majority of Americans.
The statistics that are being thrown around to try to convince people that reforms are not needed are meaningless.
Gerry Hageman
LAS VEGAS
