State of the Union

Strong conclusion: America, Iraq, the world

Editor, The Times:

Now that we've had the elections in Iraq and the president's State of the Union address, this might be an appropriate time to ask ourselves, "What are we really doing in Iraq?"

Answer: world domination.

Iraq is the second-largest oil producer in the world. In addition — and this is not mentioned often in the mainstream media — Iraq has, by far, the largest amount of untapped oil reserves of any country. Whoever controls the oil spigots in Iraq has the drop on all the oil-thirsty countries of Europe and Asia. This fact has not gone unnoticed by the civilian planners in the Pentagon.

In Iraq, our government now operates the largest embassy in the world. U.S. troops and civilian contractors are, right now, building massive military bases there. Our government's intention, obvious to the world and virtually unknown to us here, is to dig in for the long haul, and install and support a long-term puppet regime.

Our reason for being in Iraq is to establish permanent military bases there, control the flow of oil, and quell any European or Asian threats to our supreme desire for world domination.

Our government doesn't tell us any of these things, because we might become dangerous if we knew.

— Bill Lawrence, Seattle

State of democracy

The natural progression is from tyranny to worldwide freedom

Millions of Iraqis flooded polling stations, undeterred by terrorist threats, for a chance to participate in the democratic process and for a stake in their country's future. The actions of the Iraqi people reaffirm a universal truth: The longing for freedom inherent in every human heart will overcome fear and tyranny when given the opportunity.

While there will be challenges ahead for the people of Iraq, this historic day was a triumph for liberty and provides hope for those who continue to live under the oppression of dictators and despotism.

The war in Iraq is not about oil or imposing our values on others; it is about making the world a safer place. Tyranny breeds terrorism, while democracy, once rooted, frees the spirit. To wit, never in history have two democratic countries gone to war against each other.

As those who continue to deny freedom to the masses are "encouraged" to loosen their grip on humanity, a more peaceful world will result.

God bless President Bush and the brave men and women of our armed forces who have sacrificed in advancing the cause of freedom. You have made the world a safer place and, in the words of those dancing in the streets of Baghdad, thank you.

— Michael Kerr, Seattle

No rest for the warrior

The elections in Iraq were such a big success that I think we should invade some other countries. We could start with Iran and North Korea, but there is no need to stop there. Never mind the civilian casualties — freedom is on the march!

Let's get going, because there are plenty of oppressive dictatorships to keep us busy.

— Joe Sullivan, Kirkland

A tale of two victories

The Iraqi people have signaled their commitment to democracy with a large election turnout in the face of death threats from the terrorists. Some did pay with their lives for their efforts to vote. Their courage is epitomized by Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a terrorist attack in October, and walked with his crutches to vote. He said "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me." This was an incredible and courageous turnout in their first election!

This day was also a validation of the steadfast leadership of our president, and most of all, the efforts and sacrifice of the dedicated men and women of our armed forces. The devotion and courage of our finest Americans have once again liberated the oppressed and supported another nation on the path of freedom.

This must be a severe disappointment for the leftist, hate-America groups here in Washington. So-called "peace" groups have consistently encouraged the terrorists and opposed our country's efforts to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq.

With pride I say that on Nov. 2, with the re-election of President George W. Bush, the American people rejected these America-haters and, on Jan. 30, the people of Iraq rejected them also.

— Jeff Brigham, Tumwater

The best of times

President Bush understands that the goal he is pursuing in Iraq represents a rejection of the status quo in the Middle East. His goal is to encourage and support the right of people to choose their leaders.

The president understands clearly that people everywhere desire freedoms that we take for granted. The brave men and women of our armed forces are fighting not only for the right of Iraqis to vote, but also for the future freedom of their children and grandchildren.

— Joe Kiser, Burien

The worst of times

No nation can be considered to be having democratic elections when it is an occupied nation and when it cannot choose the time or nature of those elections. If voters cannot even move freely about their neighborhood, let alone their country, just what sort of freedom is the United States bringing to this ravaged country?

What nation can claim to be moving toward democracy when it will be unable to control its economy or it resources, as is the case in Iraq?

This election was a sham meant to soothe worried Americans and help us avert our eyes from the chaos that is claiming greater numbers of our soldiers every day. It's meant to make us forget that we were lied into an unnecessary war, and that any chance to salvage the botched rebuilding process passed many months ago.

Many Iraqis did vote. Many were told that they wouldn't get their food rations if they didn't. Many more boycotted the election. This is a recipe for civil war, not democracy.

— Carol Davidek-Waller, Kirkland

Re-D Day

George Bush is to be congratulated for allowing the majority Shiites to vote themselves into power in Iraq under the forceful guidance of the Islamic cleric the Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani.

But wait a minute — al Sistani is a citizen of Iran. And isn't Iran a member in good standing of Bush's Axis of Evil club? Uh-oh.

I wonder if Bush's people are even now drawing up contingency plans to re-invade the new Islamocracy of Iraq.

— Dave Richards, Bainbridge Island

Pox Americana

We in America can applaud the spirit of the Iraqi people to vote under threat of death. When will we in America rise against the slander of honorable veterans and threats of political reprisals that characterize our voting process?

Good going, Iraq. When you've established your democracy, come over here and liberate us from the garbage we endure every election.

— Dan Slaby, Auburn

Shining city

Lined with rare jams

Regarding "The great city" (guest commentary, Jan. 30), if authors Bruce Katz and David Jackson can travel from West Seattle or Ballard to downtown, at rush hour, quickly and easily, then they should show the rest of us how to do it. Until they can, the problem will seem immediate and obvious, and the monorail will look like an attractive alternative to sitting in traffic, awaiting the collapse of the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

By the way, the monorail stations will indeed lack park-and-ride lots, by design. The entire point of an inner-city transportation system is to remove the need for private automobiles. Subsidizing private transport to and from the stations, by providing parking, will simply encourage sprawl. Residences and the shops that serve residents — not acres of ugly asphalt — should abut the monorail stations.

— Patrick McArdle, Seattle

Gilding the lowly

Bruce Katz and David Jackson said what I have been griping about for years. Seattle is not yet a true "world class" city. On the cusp, but we have a few details to take care of. Sure, we have some of the bells and whistles, but are very lacking in infrastructure. And if we don't take care of the things they suggested, all we are left with is failure and a pretty rotten place to live.

All those posers out there who say we are so "world class" haven't been anywhere, as far as I'm concerned.

— Douglas Mays, Seattle

Mainstream audience

Shattered gloss

I'm a new online subscriber to The Seattle Times, and read Editorial Page Editor James Vesely's "Mainstream: Is anyone in the middle?" (editorial column, Jan. 30). The attitude expressed by readers who want columns and comics dropped because they don't agree with them is one reason political dialogue in this country has become more like a war than a talk.

I'm grateful when I get to read opposing viewpoints, and make a mental exercise out of trying to poke holes in the positions I don't agree with. If I can't do that, then I have to actually think about my own position. What a concept.

Newspapers that regularly express only one point of view aren't newspapers at all, but propaganda tools. If that's what you're looking for, I recommend any publication put out by advocacy groups for either the Republicans or the Democrats.

— Joel Parkes, Los Angeles, Calif.

Citizen keen

Oh good, you aren't going to drop "Doonesbury," or Molly Ivins or Charles Krauthammer. It is not necessary for me to agree with the writer; many times I don't and sometimes I can't be bothered to even finish the commentary.

But to not publish an opposing or an alternative viewpoint, no. That way leads to a totally uninformed reader and citizen.

Krauthammer's viewpoints usually make my blood boil but, interestingly, over the years of reading him, there are times I agree with him. It is only by reading and being aware of so many viewpoints I can grow.

Keep publishing the various writers and keep writing editorials that are pertinent to the world we live in.

— Marlys Ford, Seattle

Under fire

There is no mainstream. In fact, there is very little that could pass as dialogue in today's America. Instead of dialogue, we conduct concurrent monologues. We don't want to hear what the other guy has to say because we know we are right, so what's the point in listening to disagreement.

The world has become a sadder place in large part because the unvarnished truth is rarely seen. Cacophony has replaced it and the truth doesn't appreciate being replaced by noise, however slickly spun.

What we need is an arena where assertions can be tested such that they pass or fail. I would like to see a few of our most divisive issues subjected to formal definitions, debate and objective fact-checking. There are far too many agenda-driven "facts" flying around these days and it has become nigh impossible to separate the real facts from what someone wishes those facts were.

We may have freedom of speech in this country but we ought not have a freedom to lie or distort. We have a critical need for the truth. We can't function as citizens without it and that may explain why America seems to be heading for hell in a handbasket of late.

— Bob Wojtyna, Woodinville

Absence of malice

Diversity of opinion is great — and one of the things that makes the U.S.A. great. Is someone holding a gun to these people's heads and making them read columnists they don't like or simply disagree with? If they can't stand it, don't read it! How hard is that?

What happened to "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Well, you and I know that (as I suspect the majority of readers do), so keep up the good work!

— Doug Winder, Bremerton