"How about just bring the soldiers home from Iraq?"

Military outlet

Parental warning: Keep children away from war machine

Editor, The Times:

"It 'makes sense' to consider a draft" [Times page one, Aug. 11]: Makes sense to whom? Not to most Americans in this country.

How about just bring the soldiers home from Iraq? How about we not draft our young men and women so that we can kill 10 or 12 or 20 a week?

What mother or father in their right mind would agree to allow our government to reinstate the draft so their sons or daughters could participate in this absurd roulette of death?

Now is the time to tell your senators and congressman this is totally unacceptable. If you think that surely this administration couldn't ramrod something so wrong through the system, think again. Ask the families of the more than 4,000 soldiers who have already fallen for this misbegotten cause.

— Maura Callahan, Snoqualmie

Service covers everyone

As the father of a soldier currently serving for the next 15 months in Afghanistan with the 173rd PIR (Parachute Infantry Regiment) and as a civilian just back from Iraq, I might have a slightly different view on the universal-draft proposition: I am all for it ... really!

The all-volunteer Army as we know it is wearing itself out in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this country's leaders, be they Republican or Democratic, continue to be involved in foreign adventures, we need a better way to supply our armed forces with the manpower that is needed.

We also need to spread the responsibility for those decisions to more of the people in this country so that everyone might know what it means to have a loved one overseas in harm's way. There is no sarcasm or second meaning in this from my part ... I really believe we have to rethink what service to our country means.

I do have one small condition: If the draft is to be on the lottery system as before, I think it should automatically put sons and daughters of all politicians first to be called up, and all their political advisers' children and finally all journalists' children, especially those who are editorialists in newspapers or on radio or TV — and no exceptions. If they are not in combat arms, then they must serve as medics or in hospitals near the front line.

Let their parents know immediately what the effects of their policies and opinions are to their own kids, before they send others' off to do their work and the work they perceive to be of critical importance to our country. I'm guessing it just might give them pause for more thought.

— James Dietz, Seattle

Lifetime supply of attachment

It is not wicked enough that this administration, including some of the generals who support George Bush, are sending the same Reserves and National Guardsmen and women to Iraq for repeated deployment. Now the administration is testing Americans' stomach for a military draft so our young men and women can be used as targets in whichever "war" the president creates.

All you young parents and parents-to-be need to challenge the idea of a military draft. You never know what kind of nutty adventure people like George Bush or Dick Cheney can get us into, and possibly get your children wounded or killed, to satisfy a totally wrong attack on another nation.

It seems that the current administration wants endless wars and an endless supply of young to serve in them.

A suggestion: Ask each of the presidential candidates their views on a military draft. Nail them down before you vote.

— Lois Logan Horn, Seattle

Your choice of options

The draft. What a wonderful idea; but only if it offers the choice of military or community service.

Imagine the impact our young people bring with their creativity and energy. And imagine the impact such a program could have on the aimless and troubled members of that generation.

Erase from your memory the Vietnam-era draft. The 21st-century draft will be a force for positive change that will transform this country in so many ways. Protecting our freedom. Rebuilding our inner cities, rural towns and national parks. Teaching the world's poor how to be self-sufficient.

And after two years of service, the U.S. would offer educational opportunities, much like the G.I. Bill does.

This United States has given so much opportunity to our young people. Here is an opportunity for the youth of America to give something to their country

— Richard McLeland-Wieser, Tukwila

Practical folk

The justices get it

The Times seriously blew its opinion of the Washington Supreme Court ruling about the office prank with boar tusks ["Court's ruling bites," editorial, July 30].

The three other female staff members actually played the prank with the dentist. It was an extension of the low-key atmosphere created, that went too far.

The dentist correctly believed relaxed staff would set his understandably nervous patients more at ease. His assistants were with him five years or more. The others stayed with him for years after. No regular patients were ever involved.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. promised to defend more than just regular dental services. The insurer actually promised to defend claims from "... operat[ing] an office for the practice of dentistry."

What reasonable person would think the claim by the employee/patient did not arise from operating this office? The court got it right.

Worse, your punch line, that patients may need a chaperone because of the court, was cheap and disgraceful. The Supreme Court did not even address whether the employee was treated right, let alone condone the treatment. The dentist long before took responsibility and settled with the employee. That case was over.

The dentist had asked his insurer to take responsibility for its broken promise. The Supreme Court agreed the insurer had not done so.

If the insurer had defended, it almost certainly would not have had to pay a dime of the employee's claim. Instead, it acted in bad faith, as determined by the jury. How did The Times forget we need insurers most when we do something wrong?

— Dick Kilpatrick, co-counsel for Dr. Robert Woo, Bellevue

Flipping opportunity

Get rich

According to "City may buy back land it sold to Vulcan" [page one, Aug. 14]: "The city of Seattle wants to buy back some South Lake Union property it sold six years ago to Paul Allen. And now taxpayers will likely pay a higher price for the land than Allen's development company did."

So why not use the eminent-domain law to just take the land back from Vulcan chairman Paul Allen? The U.S. Supreme Court has already said it's OK to do this [Kelo v. New London].

Laws always favor the rich and hurt the poor; but here's a chance to break with tradition. Go for it!

— Marjorie Rhodes, Seattle