Letter to the Editor

Conservative misunderstands Marshall Plan

Dear Editor,

I would like to address Russell Greim's Monday column. Let me first say that he is correct, the pessimists were wrong about the war in Iraq.

However, I felt the column missed the point, and to be fair, readers should see the piece without the inflection of pro-Bush propaganda.

There is a difference between being an optimist and being one who cannot see the other side of the coin because he is too busy ogling over how great he thinks his own side is.

Greim wrote that he watched "people rejoice" in Basra and "people cheer" in Mosul. Like a true conservative, he turned away from the problems. The people stopped cheering when their throats hurt and they realized there was no water. They probably stopped rejoicing once they realized that one can't eat the word "rejoice."

Just so readers know the truth about the Marshall Plan it was not a "comprehensive plan used to rebuild Germany and Japan" because our government felt bad about "the devastation wrought by fire bombings and nuclear weapons."

On the contrary, it was a vital piece of the onslaught of the Cold War. It was a plan of massive economic support to help rebuild Western Europe, where cities were lying in rubble and the economic base was destroyed during World War II. Britain, France and the like all needed money.

Since the United States only imported from Europe half of what it exported, these countries had to have a way to pay us for goods or it meant unemployment at home. The government also thought that economic instability in the west would lead to communist takeovers of these countries.

I know, sounds ridiculous. However, much like our current administration wants to do in Iraq, the United States did not go through the U.N. on the Marshall Plan; that way the United States could have full control. Rejoice Iraq! If you're lucky, Bush will want American control in post-war Iraq.

Finally Greim asked, "will Iraq be a free and prosperous nation...only time will tell." Well, wait no more my pedigreed chum, the answer is probably not. Iraq already is a nation full of wealth; they just need help learning to share.

So do you send a committee of many nations striving toward one goal, or do you send George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their big business pals at Halliburton Oil?

As for free, well President Bush has already succeeded in violating the freedom of Muslim-Americans and taking away some other freedoms by passing the Homeland Security Bill.

Bush once told Newsweek "there ought to be limits on freedom." What does he intend to do with Iraq's freedom? Did he take some of ours away and give it to them?

Aww, what a compassionate, yet conservative man.

Ross Fields

senior


Comments

More from The Daily






Loading Recent Classifieds...