Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Legitimizing terrorists only serves to promote more war

Re: War cloaks reality while creating myths, Sept. 3.

Bill Maxwell is back with an eloquently written piece, but grossly off the mark. His commentary on war, quoting from those who know of it, is both thought-provoking and ringing of truth.

However, when he lumps together President Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, he sets the stage for perpetuating those wars he would like to avoid.

Certain responses may be elicited by war and certain behaviors may accompany wars, but wars are fought for reasons. And there are good guys and bad guys. Giving terrorists the same cachet as legitimate world leaders simply enables terrorists to promote the very wars that Maxwell would like to have cease.

There is no place in a civilized world for the likes of Nasrallah, who calls for the annihilation of a people, and whose terrorist organization would murder 241 U.S. Marines or anyone else who would stand in the way of their world domination design.

Defending a nation (and ultimately the world) against thugs bent on annihilation and the thwarting of genocide are indeed grounds for war. So by giving legitimacy to those who would destroy a nation and engage in genocide, war is promoted, not avoided.

Robert Weisberg, Tierra Verde

Seeing through the war myths

Re: War cloaks reality while creating myths.

Bill Maxwell's article in last Sunday's Perspective section about the myths of war and patriotism was an example of fine journalism and analysis. My heart breaks for the fine young men and women who are being fed into this administration's lethal chopper of war, to aggrandize and enrich the "royalty" of our fine country. The true patriot cares about the real values of our country, advancing the good to all its citizens.

Sadly, the whipping up of pageantry, patriotism and religion has worked only to effect the suffering of our loved ones and the malice of our neighbors.

Nan Owens, Seffner

Offer a better plan for Iraq war

Re: Bush fearmongering on Iraq loses its punch, Sept. 3.

Philip Gailey's column does a great job of name-calling, but fails to provide any useful ideas. The Iraq war is controversial. So is the war on Islamic terrorists. They should be. The problems are complex, and unfortunately, proposed solutions are few.

Gailey proposes nary a single solution, nor does he suggest any alternatives to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld approach that he so deeply detests.

Well, Mr. Gailey, if you abhor the current administration's policies, what is your plan? What would you do differently? There is no need for name-calling. Address the underlying issues. Make your proposals and then explain why they have a better chance for success than the current administration's policies.

For example, if you do favor appeasement of Islamic extremists, how would you appease them? If you do not favor appeasement, and you do not favor the Bush's administration's policies, what do you favor? These are tough questions on which reasonable minds can, and should, differ.

But by calling members of the current administration all sorts of names (arrogant, ignorant, incompetent, desperate, etc.), you add nothing to the debate.

Rob Daisley, Tampa

Set a civil war body count

Re: A mission for truth, Sept. 3.

Gen. John Abizaid is quoted, "I believe sectarian violence is as bad as I've seen it ... If it is not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

This bit of waffling could go on for months or years. Apparently the current killing of 100 Iraqis a day does not qualify as "civil war." Well then why don't we define "civil war" as 200 per day, or 400 or whatever.

If we define it, and the slaughter level is reached, and we withdraw our troops, the administration gets itself off the hook for maintaining this fraudulent war since we have already stated we will not leave our troops in the midst of a civil war.

I would regret giving President Bush a face-saving escape, but it would be worth it to bring this fiasco to a definitive conclusion.

John Clement, Tierra Verde

Wal-Mart and Coke work together

Re: An enterprise too free, Sept. 3.

The article criticizing Wal-Mart as being too strong and indulging in monopsony betrays a near total lack of understanding as to the relative strengths of Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola and the way in which these two companies are organized and structured.

Specifically, Wal-Mart deals directly with millions of customers. It is also a very sophisticated company capable of measuring the desires of its customers and consumers at large every day. Coca-Cola, on the other hand, is geared to selling the syrup that makes its brand world renowned. The vast sales of Coke all over the world are made by the local bottlers of Coke. These are in large measure independent entities. The Coca-Cola Corp. sells the syrup and provides the advertising that keeps the bottlers going strong. On that basis, Wal-Mart is far more able to see whether consumers want a change in the Coke product than Coca-Cola is. Also, Coca-Cola has been burned severely on basic product changes. You may remember the disastrous attempt to modernize Coke.

It is not a bad thing that Wal-Mart could get Coca-Cola's attention when it saw a change in consumer attitudes. The reason for a company to be in business, besides making a profit, is to satisfy customer desires. Wal-Mart's strength helped Coca-Cola satisfy consumer needs better than before. That is good for everyone, both companies and their customers.

John J. Christman, Parrish

Low pay is found beyond Wal-Mart

Anyone who thinks Wal-Mart is the only low-paying store in Florida should do some research on how much supermarkets in Florida pay their employees.

Danny Burkhart, Brooksville

Education is way to advance

Philip Gailey, in his Aug. 27 column, said no one is forcing people to take low-paying jobs at Wal-Mart. Letter writers on Sept. 3 responded, saying, yes, their poverty does force them to seek employment there for lack of better opportunities. I agree with both.

Let's look at who the employees are. Look at their education level: How many of them graduated from high school or have a college degree? Scant few.

No, they might not have chosen to work for Wal-Mart, but they did choose to not take advantage of all the educational opportunities out there.

Until Wal-Mart suddenly grows a conscience and gives them all raises, the best way these employees can help themselves is to go back to school, pass the GED test, get a scholarship or loan, earn a degree, and get a job that will pay them better.

Sarah Lehrmann, Clearwater

Unions don't care about productivity

Re: Workers feel the squeeze, Sept. 3.

Robyn Blumner writes: "After a tumultuous beginning ... unions finally established themselves, helping to guarantee workers a fair share of productivity gains." Oh, that it was so! Unions have never given as much as a nod to productivity. Rather, as Blumner points out later, unions have sought an environment where "long, loyal service is rewarded with growing remuneration, job security and a pension."

Unions have been the enemy of productivity. They do not seek to share in productivity gains but rather an increased share of revenues without regard to productivity or profits. Unionism breeds mediocrity, an environment in which innovation and productivity increases are stifled.

Should a workers group approach management with a contract that sought to tie wages to productivity and establish a meritocracy that would allow for rewards to higher achieving workers (and ways of effectively dealing with underachievers), I think they would be met with open arms and quick acceptance.

Tom Booker, Oldsmar

[Last modified September 9, 2006, 20:33:32]