Mark Milley should resign, Susan Collins will not pay for what she bought, No to question 3
Letters submitted by BDN readers are verified by BDN Opinion Page staff. Send your letters to [email protected]
Milley should resign
General Mark Milley’s recent remarks to Congress are very disturbing. First, he called the withdrawal from Afghanistan “strategic failure.“There is nothing strategic about Afghanistan, and as America moves away from an oil-based economy, America’s only strategic objective in the region is to prevent the spread of weapons. nuclear.
Second, he favored continue the war in Afghanistan and kick the box on the road. The only results of his choosing would be to provide military officers with a place to punch their tickets for the promotion and return of the American body bags.
Third, the generals did not foresee the sudden and complete collapse of the Afghan army. Their apologies are lame: the Afghan army was trained and modeled on the US military; and the readiness of the Afghan army could not be assessed. Fortunately, the ill-planned withdrawal was successful, but only because of the Taliban.
And finally, he said his resignation would be an act of “political challenge. “What nonsense! What about the creed of duty, honor and homeland? I think it was his duty to resign graciously if he strongly disagreed with President Joe Biden. Biden. should do him a favor and show him the door.
Collins won’t pay for what she bought
Senator Susan Collins seconded bills that added nearly $ 8 trillion to US debt under the previous administration. And now that the bill is due, she’s basically saying, “No, I’m not going to pay it! ”
As justification, Collins said that Democrats recently passed a $ 1.9 trillion COVID relief bill and are trying to pass a big spending bill, so they are the ones who should pay off the past debts she helped incur .
I think this is a despicably partisan and horribly irresponsible decision. Collins shows her true colors by supporting the default on the debts she has incurred, endangering the faith and credit of the United States.
Apparently it is party rather than country for Senator Collins.
No to question 3
While seemingly innocuous with a welfare name, the constitutional amendment on the right to food will leave a bad taste in the mouths of Mainers for decades to come.
A recent review noted the vagueness in the reasoning of those who support what could one day become a problem, as being completely insufficient to justify changing Maine’s constitution. When this measure came before the legislature, it was opposite by the Maine Veterinary Medical Association, the Maine Municipal Association, the Maine Farm Bureau, the Maine Animal Rights, and the Maine Potato Board, among other opponents.
I believe it is too vague and far-reaching to have a permanent place in the Constitution of Maine.
In Maine, economic hardship leads to hunger or food insecurity. question 3 does not allow a penny for the hungry. With such ambiguous language, this amendment, if passed, could pave the way for companies like Monsanto to do whatever they want with our food and could remove animal welfare standards in animal agriculture.
Its passage could deprive local governments of the power to provide appropriate health and safety, pollution control and zoning standards, create confusion and invite legal challenges when it comes to enforcing the standards. Maine’s wildlife laws, while threatening the ability of lawmakers at the local or state level. level to ensure gun safety and animal welfare, including acceptable husbandry practices, wildlife management, zoning and animal rights. Food safety in our communities would become a public health issue.
I don’t think the architects of the amendment gave Mainers a single good reason to propose this amendment to our constitution.
Animal behavior and healing