It has been only a month since the terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center, and already equivocators are at work attempting to undermine the resolve the nation felt to go to war against terrorism. The standard argument is that if we attack anywhere where the natives are Muslim, we will only make them more determined to strike back at us again.
How can they be more determined than they were on Sept. 11? Is it conceivable that there are people who actually believe that they have satisfied their hatred of America and will now be nice to us if only we don't make them mad?
This was the theme of the movie High Noon, where a great majority of the townsfolk refused to help the sheriff fight the bad guys when they found they were returning. Bad guys don't think that way at all.
However, I feel that our worst enemies are those professors in our universities who are teaching gullible young students that we deserve to be attacked because we, Americans, are evil. They are no different from the mullahs in Pakistan who teach ignorant children from the streets to hate America because we are evil.
No nation is perfect, of course, but we, as a nation, have come closer than any other. I don't see anybody beating down the border guards to get into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, or any other Middle Eastern country.
ROBERT J. LAUER
Sulphur Springs Road
Let us stop pussy-footing. Get down and dirty with Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the disaster and a street fighter. Let's take off the kid gloves, put on brass knuckles, and make it interesting. Those of us from World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam know how, and we did this. Remember, there were a couple of A-bombs. Remember “take no prisoners.” It was a means to an end. We know what war is, and we don't think the citizens of this country should have to experience one.
Let's put some money, I'm talking big money, on the table. For starters, $50 million for bin Laden's body, dead or alive. If $50 million doesn't work, add $10 million every 30 days until it does work. That would be very attractive, maybe even to an entire country or countries.
True, someone else will take bin Laden's place. Simply put more money on the table. One day these criminals will get the idea. After all, it took a period of time to get where we are now.
We've got more than $50 million in this battle now, and we've only begun our war.
I know this proposed plan will save lives, is “bullet-proof,” and will cost fewer dollars. It is much simpler to write checks, which we will do anyhow, then wage a war.
Oak Alley Court
President Bush has drawn too sharp a contrast between the goodness of America and the evil of suicide bombers and their accomplices.
In Central America alone, past U.S. governments have caused pain, confusion, and death by starting, prolonging, and reopening civil wars.
In 1954 a U.S.-sponsored civil war expelled an elected government and brought in domination of the governments of Guatemala by the army.
It is estimated that 70,000 people lost their lives in a civil war in El Salvador in the 1980s. The war was prolonged by U.S. interference to prevent the triumph of a rebel alliance, which the state department labeled communist.
The Reagan administration reorganized the group, which had lost the civil war in Nicaragua, for a second try. The war was renewed and continued for years. It was punctuated by scattered acts of terror by the rebels.
Can the American people be blamed for misdeeds of past governments of which they were and are unaware? Well, they are unaware of many good and notable things past governments have done. But this does not prevent them from benefiting from these past achievements. Can they benefit and take credit for actions of past governments that have brought America credit without accepting some responsibility for actions, which were mistaken?
On account of the burden of their history, which contains good and mistaken deeds by those in authority acting on the people's behalf, citizens are not free to reject responsibility even for past acts of their American government.
Listening to the State Department travel advisories is certainly worthwhile, as you stated in your Sept. 27 editorial. However, your reference to the two young American women who should have listened to their parents entirely missed the point.
They are 24 and 29 years old, adults by most standards, and able to make decisions on their own. If they were in Afghanistan for evangelizing Christianity, they were guided by a power higher than the U.S. State Department.
The Blade stated that young adults can be “headstrong, and sometimes too idealistic for their own good,” but if these women were preaching the salvation of Christ, they were being heartstrong and saving others' souls for eternity.
As The Blade stated, everyone hopes that they will escape the death penalty and be allowed to come home. But no Christian can do greater honor to Jesus Christ, who died for us, as these two would if they are sentenced to death by the Taliban for peacefully relating the salvation of Jesus Christ to others. Heather and Dana's commitment and character would stand in stark contrast to those who think they honor their god by killing more than 6,000 innocent men, women, and children.
Maybe it's OK for God to bless America again.
As I watched our President make his many speeches, I have come to the conclusion that he is a man like so many of us. I have seen the tears in his eyes, and the way he mispronounces his words, just like I have in the past.
To me he is a great leader, one who sets an example for all of us. I don't think we will see any cigars in his office, and to me he could be a friend to any one of us. It is a difficult job and one I believe most people wouldn't want in the first place.
God bless him and all those around him.
JOHN E. BROWN
I think the state of Ohio, to save money, should do away with the PUCO. The PUCO does no measurable service for average citizens, perhaps even works against them, and compiles millions in expenses each year. The exact amount of expenses would probably surprise us all. It seems to have a very cavalier attitude about its responsibilities.
I think a citizens' group could replace PUCO very effectively, and at a fraction of the cost. Members would most likely be aware of their charter and thus their responsibilities, and they would, at least for awhile, be actively pursuing the best interests of the utility users in the state of Ohio.
The PUCO seems to have forgotten why it was formed in the first place. If not for the best interests of the citizens, then what? Many people who have bothered to file a complaint with it have to have come away with a rather empty feeling, something akin to butting your head against the wall. Maybe I'm in the minority, but in my mind the PUCO seems to have lost its way.
Did Archie have a point?
Reading recently that in the future airline pilots may be equipped with stun guns, I can't help but recall how I laughed at the All in the Family episode in which Archie Bunker said that to solve the hijacking problem, give all passengers guns as they board the plane. Years ago it seemed so funny and farfetched.
West Capistrano Avenue