|By garydeboer (22.214.171.124) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:05 pm: Edit Post|
Interesting that the National Review author assumes that war must precede the work of Peace Corps volunteers. I expect that if you look at the countries that Peace Corps has served you will find few that we occupied prior to establishing peace corps.
Granted, there is purpose for the military and there may be time for justifiable military actions. All of which most PCV's would support. But the assumption that we need to occupy a country before we send in the peace corps is erroneous.
In fact the Peace corps is there to prevent the poor soldier from finding himself in harms way, as Peace corps is a preemptive attack on the poverty and lack of human development that breed the environment for war and terrorists.
Surely, the soldier should be as grateful to the PCV as the PCV is to the soldier.
I would also expect that many PCV's were dismayed by comments that the Peace Corps would be sent to Iraq to repair the image of the US after Abu Ghraib. The same assumption was made by those making this comment, Peace Corps cleans up after military actions.
That is not the Peace Corps I was part of, was it the Peace Corps you were part of?
|By Joseph F. Murnan (cache-dtc-aa07.proxy.aol.com - 126.96.36.199) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 9:20 am: Edit Post|
Who the heck is the National Review?