Letters to the editor

Escalating tension

Declaration of war is little more than reckless behavior

Editor, The Times:

Regarding "Let's face it, it's World War III, Gingrich says" [Times, Local News, July 16]:

Newt Gingrich is shameless but crafty. He knows that the Bush Republicans immediately exploited the tragedy of Sept. 11 by labeling it a "war." And he sees the political gains it brought them. And when people are told they are at "war," and they're very scared to begin with, they'll do virtually anything you tell them to do.

Gingrich — who has never liked the Bushes and vice-versa — has apparently decided to follow Bush's lead and also take it one step further by calling this "war" [between Israel and Hezbollah] "World War III." It's sick and it's absolutely Orwellian.

This "war" — particularly if people can be led to accept it as World War III — will go on forever, with absolutely no end in sight. (After all, to end it would be a sign of "weakness" and "surrender.") Like the totalitarian society described by George Orwell in "1984," we'll be told that the "enemy" is everywhere and can strike us at any moment. We'll be told to believe that civil rights and liberties must be pushed aside in an effort to "win" this "war." Our blood and our treasury will continue to be drained by this war without end. And any violations of human rights, here or abroad, will be justified in the name of fighting the enemy.

Gingrich is only attempting to one-up George W. Bush with his twisted and bizarre rhetoric about this being a "war" that we must "win." And like Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and so many other warmongers, he would run for the nearest exit if he ever had to fight in a war himself.

Gingrich is engaging in a demented, pathological form of wishful thinking, hoping that if World War III can break out, it will provide him and his party with further political advantage. This is a revolting game, Newt, and we Americans won't sit silently while you play it.

— Steve Nesich, Seattle

The neutral side

"Gaza and Lebanon, an endless summer" [editorial, July 16] states "... the outside world appears to be incredibly and inexplicably comfortable with letting the sides fight themselves bloody."

That would seem to be accurate. However, inasmuch as the United States has essentially armed the Israelis through yearly payments of $3 billion for more than 50 years, the result would be an unacceptably unfair fight.

The editorial later states "... Israel has the sympathy of the United States to hit back hard against rocket attacks." Inasmuch as Israel is the invader, the rotten apple souring the Middle East apple barrel, I wonder if the U.S. public majority has more sympathy for Israelis than for the Lebanese or Palestinians. The last poll I saw revealed otherwise.

One thing should be clear: The United States should stay out of the affair and stop all further aid, except food or medical aid, to either side.

— Spencer Higley, Edmonds

They are expendable

Am I the only person completely astounded that U.S. citizens in Lebanon waited days to hear from our government for an evacuation plan?

The Department of State and our embassies list one of their primary purposes as protecting and assisting Americans living or traveling abroad. Why is it that we don't have extensive evacuation plans to get our citizens out of [any] country for all possible scenarios? Wouldn't you think we would have predetermined emergency systems to set in motion at a moment's notice?

Our president talks about the importance of protecting U.S. citizens. However, the mission statement and strategic plan on the Department of State's Web site mentions nothing about protecting citizens living and visiting abroad. It does, though, talk extensively about protecting U.S. national interests, and fostering a more democratic and prosperous world integrated into the global economy.

One might wonder if U.S. corporate executives fulfilling military and government contracts in Lebanon were told they were on their own, as was the message to average Americans.

Aren't all U.S. citizens a "national interest"?

— Mike Frederickson, Seattle

Civilian shelter

With all the violence and destruction going on lately in places like India and the Middle East, the best thing people can do is to start behaving with a lot more humility and willingness to forgive.

I don't like what leaders in Washington, D.C., do sometimes, but we're a country and I try my best to behave in a civil manner despite disagreements.

Hostility and threats of revenge hurt a lot more than they help.

— Tom Hundley, Seattle

Seattle upholds virtue

Crime covers the rest

News item: Mayor Greg Nickels believes strip clubs are influenced by organized crime ["Nickels accuses strip clubs of links to organized crime," Local News, July 15].

Considering the 18-year Seattle denial of applications for strip-club licenses, how can Mayor Nickels possibly be surprised? He merely needs to review history to see where organ-ized crime goes: During Prohibition, organized crime went into speakeasies and bootlegging. Organized crime has made money in prostitution, gambling, drugs and usury. Ignoring history will not change it.

Mayor Nickels and his predecessor's policy of denying strip-club licenses have invited organized crime.

— Eric Tronsen, Seattle

Vogue uneasiness

We don't like labels

I generally enjoy Susan Nielsen's writing, but "In this fashion backwater, the devil wears Eddie" [guest commentary, July 17] hit a sour note with me. I'm a native Northwesterner who lived for several years on the East Coast (Manhattan, the Boston area and Maine). I'm afraid her column is one of those precious "we're from the Northwest" kinds of things that continues to give the impression we all live in tents or log cabins.

Since Ms. Nielsen has lived in both Seattle and Portland, she can't possibly be able to ignore the high fashion trends in both cities — particularly most recently in Portland with the ultra-expensive shops in northwest Portland and downtown.

I most recently lived in Portland in the early 2000s and felt much more out of place in some neighborhoods there in my Northwest gear than I ever did in Manhattan.

Neither Portland nor Seattle are fashion backwaters, even though a lot of people prefer Eddie Bauer. On the other hand, when I lived in Manhattan, you were just as likely to see locals schlepping around with backpacks; and jeans (and I don't mean the $90/pair kind) were worn just about everywhere.

— Molly Cook, Whidbey Island