 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Letters to the EditorsWe should get full reports on horrors of war© St. Petersburg Times published April 19, 2003 Re: "Mindful" and bloodless war coverage, April 17. Ellen Goodman's piece about bloodless war coverage should have been subtitled, "Tell it like it is." The horrors of war should be reported freely. Sanitizing the brutality for the sake of the viewers' sensibilities is, in my opinion, a disservice. War is, after all, a savage undertaking, even if it is presumably forced upon a country by circumstances of the day. Since as early as 1929, when Erich Maria Remarque wrote the book, All Quiet on the Western Front, a story about trench warfare in World War I, the brutality and senselessness of war has been in controversy. In the foreword of the book, Remarque states in part, "death is not an adventure to those who stand face-to-face with it." And after experiencing the brutality of shelling and hand-to-hand combat, the story's characters (a group of naive school boys) soon come to the realization that there is, in fact, no glory, no adventure, in war. Only maiming and death, and the loss of one's comrades. The reporting of the carnage of war may be a subject of controversy, but when it comes to the victims, the truth may be more appropriate. And any supposed glory under the guise of patriotism falls short. It is wonderful to read the success stories of bravery in the rescue operations, and to see our soldiers safely home and in the arms of their loved ones. Unfortunately, happy endings are not for everyone.
When coverage is sterilized Re: "Mindful" and bloodless war coverage. Ellen Goodman is right! She questions, ". . . how do we know . . . that war is a poison rather than a tasty elixir of patriotism . . .?" Most of the pictures we see in the media generate euphoria, loyalty to our country's position: a general striding through Baghdad, a conquered city; statues of a monstrous dictator toppled; Iraqi civilians applauding our troops; military food rations hurled from a truck to a crowd of starving civilians; mothers and children holding up pictures of their beloved husband-father soldiers sent far away to "defend" our country; a smiling president applauded at military bases. Less frequently we see other, sobering kinds of images: a 12-year-old boy who lost his arms, his parents and a brother in an air strike; a family surrounding the coffin of their 4-year-old child; children swathed in bandages to cover horrific burns, but unable to receive medical care because hospitals have been looted. In the mainstream media we rarely learn about some of our soldiers who entered the military to receive free education and better their lives, who hate the idea of killing, are sickened when they witness peers shooting civilians, but feel unable to speak out against the war. We don't hear about people injured by cluster bombs. Many Americans see newspaper and television images of our victory in war as a "quick fix," but what does it fix? We are told one of the reasons we fought was to make the world safer from terrorists. But are we not generating more hate when we kill people, destroy buildings, knock out electricity and water systems, and allow looting of historic museums? Are we not participating in evil, hoping to bring about good? Do we believe that the end justifies the means? Ellen Goodman helps us understand how the media can sterilize its coverage, protecting the readers' sensibilities, to keep them watching and reading, even supporting the war.
Hostile to tyranny If one feels the need for justification for our fighting to rid the world of terrorist threats or a despotic dictator who would aid them, one should consider the words of a founding father: "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson
What's wrong with teaching peace? Re: Peacenik proselytizing in preschool, by Michelle Malkin, April 17. So now some people are getting worried that small children are being taught that we should strive for peace and to avoid war. Wow, how dangerous! It is apparently okay for the military to bring in all kinds of information about the Army, to let kids climb over Humvees and wear miniature uniforms, but we don't dare teach them that it would be good not to have wars and not to need such equipment. I thought one thing kindergartens and preschools did best was to teach children to get along and work together. Michelle Malkin's column is similar to what we are finding elsewhere. People can praise war all they want, but let Susan Sarandon or Tim Robbins dare to speak out on peace and suddenly they are being told to shut up. Peace people are not for Saddam Hussein or any other person who abuses his people, nor do they want our soldiers killed. The fact is that they do not want anyone to kill anywhere. When we think that teaching peace is somehow out of line, we should not be surprised when our children grow up to be violent.
Subtly spreading socialism Re: Peacenik proselytizing in preschool, April 17. Bless you and thank you, Michelle Malkin, for bringing our attention to this situation. As a child of the Depression and now a great-grandmother, I know quite well the truth of the adage "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree." My mother directed my toddling attention to the beauty of a flower, the "face" in a cloud or would read me a story when she was unable to give me a requested treat she could not afford! It worked well. I grew up appreciating beauty, educational opportunities and the value of a dollar. I worked at instilling those thoughts and attitudes early in my "twigs." Exposing children to the proselytizing Malkin describes is the subtlest form of spreading socialism, and we should all be alerted to this devious implantation in our dearest gardens: the minds of our children.
Like father, like son Re: Arab world looks to Syria, April 15. In another timely column, Times senior correspondent Susan Taylor Martin concludes with a quote from Nadim Shehadi, an expert on Syria at Oxford University. "The main thing about the fall of Saddam," he says, "is that he is a symbol of Arab nationalism and his demise will create a vacuum. Certainly Bashar Assad will try and fill that." From our perception, Syrian President Bashar Assad is indeed a chip off the old block. While Western educated, he nevertheless has the same view as his father, Hafez Assad. Remember it was Papa Assad who wiped out some 30,000 of his own countrymen; it was Hafez who made a parking lot out of the city of Hama. It cannot be overlooked that Bashar Assad provides sanctuary for Sami Al-Arian's friend, Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, head of the Islamic Jihad. Shallah dispatches his homicide bombers on their assignments from Syria. In addition, young Assad furnishes sanctuary for Iran's Hezbollah and continues to occupy Lebanon as a virtual vassal state. Bashar Assad and the Syrians have no real regard for the Palestinians. It is a fact that none of the Arab states have expressed much concern regarding the so-called Palestinians. It is a fact that they have all butchered the Palestinians and treated them as a lower class. It is high time that we realize that the Palestinians are pawns for the likes of Arab tyrants, such as Saddam Hussein, Abdul Gamal Nasser and now the new pretender of so-called Arab nationalism, Bashar Assad. Let's not be fooled once again.
Targeting Hussein is a matter of justice Re: Questionable targeting tactics, letter, April 16. To the letter writer: It is such a blessed thing to live in a country where we are free to give such opinions, isn't it? Do you realize that Saddam Hussein is responsible for massive amounts of murders, most of which were of his own people? He tortures many innocent civilians and uses countless others as pawns in his game of domination. He is also responsible for each and every one of our soldiers that have been killed or injured thus far. Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity for peace. He was even offered a chance to leave the country to avoid the death and destruction that goes along with war. Instead, Hussein chose to hide away in the middle of a city, where he knew innocent civilians could get hurt. He is a coward, a murderer and an evil soul. I'm sure that soldiers such as Jessica Lynch would be inclined to disagree with the idea that killing Hussein is comparable to murder, as would many Iraqi citizens. It is time that we realize what this battle is about. In my opinion it is about justice, it is about peace and most of all it about freedom. I think that freedom from persecution for beliefs, freedom from living in fear and freedom to live peacefully should be enjoyed by every human being who wishes to live that way. If killing Saddam Hussein allows that for Iraqi citizens, then so be it! The world needs to save the political debates for the election and realize that this is war. No matter how much we dislike it, it is upon us, and we need to take the opportunity to rid the world of this terrorist for good! Is that murder? I don't think so. Is that justice? Absolutely!
Draft a homeland security corps The United States should institute a draft of young American men and women to establish a homeland security corps. After basic training, members of this corps would be used to patrol our northern and southern borders, ports, tunnels, bridges and other vital resources of our nation. Working in teams and armed only with radio-telephones and other electronic surveillance equipment, these corps members would provide the initial eyes and ears to spot any suspicious activity, and would call their findings in to a central command clearing authority that would contact the proper enforcement authority. This corps would allow the police, FBI, Coast Guard and other authorities to devote their time and effort to enforcement and relieve them from the huge task of basic nationwide, detailed surveillance. Corps members would be provided uniforms and necessary surveillance and communication tools, but they would not be armed and would not have arrest powers. Members would be provided subsistence pay and transportation. In addition, they would be given chits for college tuition commensurate with time served in the corps. Service in this corps would also help develop a sense of duty for our young adults and make them better citizens.
Correction Due to an editing error, an April 17 letter, The pluses of private schools, incorrectly explained the term SLD. It means specific learning disorders.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
From the Times Opinion page |
|||||||||||||||
