"We are being governed by people who are either literally insane or megalomaniacs and on a collision course of destruction."
ATTACK IRAQ
While it is no surprise that the Seattle Weekly would oppose any American effort to defend its citizens from the threat of Saddam Hussein's regime [No New War package, Sept. 11], it is disappointing to see the same weak, recycled arguments against military action.
No sane person wants war, but the majority of Middle Eastern nations have declared war on us. They despise our freedom, modern standard of living, and tolerance because these things threaten the oppressive nature by which they control their populations. They wage war on us through terrorism, and Iraq has the ability and motive to provide terrorists with weapons that can cause the deaths of more innocents than we lost on Sept. 11.
It would be a crime NOT to strike first.
Ian McDermott
Seattle
A LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE?
Why does the Weekly and papers like it let anti-American weenie-liberals like Philip Gold write for them with their socialist view of the world [No New War, "An Anti-War Movement of One," Sept. 11]? People who feel as he does are the kind of people who allowed Germany to rise to such terrifying power in the 1930s. When will spineless liberals like Mr. Gold learn? I believe Clinton's inaction, in the face of numerous terrorist attacks on the U.S. during the 1990s, is why 3,000 souls last Sept. 11 had to perish. In the long run, not letting rogue terrorist states like Iraq be left unfettered will allow Mr. Gold (sadly) to continue writing his gibberish.
Sean Dockery
via e-mail
REMEMBER BROTHER DICK
Philip Gold's essay [No New War, "An Anti-War Movement of One," Sept. 11] reminds me of the stale conservative joke: What's a conservative? A liberal who's been mugged. Now we know what a liberal is: a conservative old enough to remember the last time Brother Dick's Traveling War Wagon rolled into town. Gold reminds us of the consequences of passively following events.
One problem with his criticism of the usual suspects—the anti-war faction—while the anti-war left has a tendency to rely on tired chants and tactics, he ignores the fact that a generation of demonization by the corporate media has taken its toll. Join that with Team Bush's "Free Speech Zones" at Junior's appearances, and even if there was an anti-war movement, how would we know it?
Charles Varani
Eugene, OR
HATE RULES
Philip Gold wrote a great article [No New War, "An Anti-War Movement of One," Sept. 11], and I couldn't agree more, but what can people do? We are not listened to—nobody cares about our vote or our opinions. It doesn't matter whether we are Republican or Democrat, we are being governed by people who are either literally insane or megalomaniacs and on a collision course of destruction. Hate rules now, hate and bigotry, and writing articles and letters to Congress seems to be where we stand. We can vote, and I will, and I hope my vote will be counted, but I cannot even count on that anymore.
Sally McDonald
via e-mail
NO NEW VIETNAM
Thank you for printing Philip Gold's "An Anti-War Movement of One" and for your bold front cover [No New War, Sept. 11]. I was a young, confused woman during the Vietnam War. I am no longer young or confused. This war cannot happen. It is a slippery slope into another Vietnam.
Sheila Crocker
via e-mail
MAKING HIS CASE
On this 9/11, a year after I found out I really was a patriot all these years, even if I didn't know it, the only thing that could have angered me more than some idiot parading around with bin Laden's portrait on a sign was the cover of the Weekly with the banner reading No New War [Sept. 11].
The cover promised to lay out the case against war in Iraq. Instead, in "An Anti-War Movement of One," we get statements that would never be tolerated by someone who did not share the Weekly's prejudices, e.g., Afghanistan "isn't worth the bones of an Arkansas grenadier." Now, I am certain Afghanistan is being insulted here, and pretty sure about Arkansas, but what does he have against grenadiers?
None of the case against an attack on Iraq was laid out. Gold failed to mention that there is a strong case for Iraq's fingerprints being all over 9/11 (not just the Atta meeting in Prague, but a meeting with the head of Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden, a training facility near Baghdad where terrorists were taught to take aircraft, and the fact that Saddam Hussein—with frankly amazing honesty—did not condemn the attack but praised it). How about the fact that if Iraq is able to produce a suitcase nuke, it will likely blackmail the West with it or just go ahead and use it.
I would not like to bet the future of my country or my children and grandchildren on Hussein's restraint.
R. Roy Blake
Seattle
RALLY, DON'T RUMBLE
Bravo to Geov Parrish for his article "Is the Peace Movement Dead?" [No New War, Sept. 11]. As a thirtysomething, middle-class, father of two, "mainstream protester," many points in the article hit home.
