Culture of violence leads to shootings On Monday...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

October 04, 2006

Culture of violence leads to shootings

On Monday, children were slaughtered yet again, and the first response by the Bush administration was to say that it will look into improving safety and security in our schools ("School Shootings in Pa. Shock Amish," Oct. 3).

What is the solution? Arming each Amish child with a pistol in his or her lunch pail? Lockdowns in all city schools? When will this stop?

Why are thinking Americans not speaking up and demanding that our government, and we as a people, stop the acceptance of the current culture of stupidity and violence?

We are an armed society and we are not a safe society.

No person needs 600 rounds of ammunition, which is what the Lancaster County murderer apparently was carrying.

We have to look at a radical approach, because the path we are on is not working.

We have to limit the access to firearms and embrace a culture that respects education and intelligence.

We Americans must demand this, because the call will not come from the current administration.

How can one expect members of the Bush administration to address violence when they embrace it themselves?

Carolyn Spedden

Baltimore

Reported cover-up taints House leaders

The scandal erupting around former Rep. Mark Foley is a telling one. And just as disturbing as the former congressman's actions is the fact that members of the Republican leadership allegedly knew about some of his actions in 2005 ("House leadership defends handling of Foley scandal," Oct. 3).

If the reports are true, House leaders let him not only stay in Congress but also continue to chair a committee dealing with children's safety.

If House leaders show such indifference to the safety of congressional pages, how can we expect them to keep our country safe, or do anything else competently?

Steven M. Clayton

Ocean, N.J.

Leaders are failing to protect our kids

When one talks the talk and puts oneself forward as a keeper of morals and decency, one had better walk the walk.

As a Roman Catholic, I was appalled and disgusted by the abuse of children within the church and the cover-up of that atrocity by church officials. And now we have the party of morality and family values apparently covering up the filthy behavior of a possible child predator ("House leadership defends handling of Foley scandal," Oct. 3).

Let it not be overlooked that the Rep. Mark Foley scandal did not come to light until it was reported by ABC News.

If it's true that you can judge a society by how it treats its children, we are failing miserably.

Paula Baranowski

Havre de Grace

Leaders far away from pain of war

The war in Iraq has divided us as a nation, and I think that we all would like to get out of this mess. But our present course will lead to five to 10 more years of occupation, deplete our treasury and leave us vulnerable to our enemies that are taking advantage of our developing weaknesses ("Bush set to campaign on security platform," Sept. 30).

The problem is that our leaders do not have any "sweat equity" in this war.

They are removed from it and remain detached even when they say that they care.

But what would happen if one of President Bush's daughters were to enlist in the National Guard and volunteer to serve in Iraq?

How long do you think we would remain at war?

Ray Bahr

Baltimore

In the long term, war will be a winner

Asking if the war in Iraq has made the United States safer right now makes about as much sense as asking if a patient is healthier in the middle of open-heart surgery ("Bush set to campaign on security platform," Sept. 30).

Both the war and the surgery make sense from a long-term perspective.

Both would have disastrous results if the operations were stopped because of complications.

Rick Faber

Gambrills

Blundering into Iraq did create terrorists

I agree with the president when he says, "You do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism" ("Bush set to campaign on security platform," Sept. 30).

But we do create terrorists when we invade an Islamic country, tear down its government, military and police, and then, over the course of an extended occupation, attempt to install a new government, military and police more aligned with our interests.

When we invaded Iraq, we fought the Iraqi army, not al-Qaida. When we threw out its government, it was the Iraqi government, not the Taliban, that was removed.

The Iraqis are Islamic, and our actions are being interpreted by many Muslims around the world as an offense against an Islamic people.

To be sure, the Iraqi leadership deserved to be replaced.

But it deserved to be replaced by the willful action of the Iraqi people, not an invasion by the United States.

Pat McGregor

Millersville

Israeli aggression causes criticism

The conclusions Victor Davis Hanson draws in his column "The new anti-Semitism" (Opinion

Commentary, Sept. 29) could not be more wrong.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.