Letter to the Editor, Philadelphia Inquirer October 7 & 8, 2001

Letter to the Editor, Philadelphia Inquirer – October 7 & 8, 2001

3. Thank the good Lord that we have a President 1. A message to all pacifists: Military response to who says what he means and follows through on his the terrorist attacks is not about vengeance, it is about word. This would not have happened with the previous national security. There is only one way to prevent administration. Instead of taking action to stop terrorism. We must make terroristic acts wholly terrorism, we would be talking them to death. I have unprofitable to the terrorist and their sponsors. The always been proud to be an American and am even recent attacks on our cities and our liberties might have prouder right now. been prevented had we provided a stern military Ron Kragel response to the terroristic assaults of years past. Turnersville We cannot respond by building higher walls around our nation, and we cannot continue to curtail our civil liberties. Likewise, we cannot respond by negotiating with terrorists and governments who do not value human life and liberty. If our retribution is issued 4. I think we’ll see more acts of terrorism in the in terms of diplomats and courtrooms, than we will be United States as a result of yesterday’s attacks. Military doomed to suffer this tragedy again. retaliation is never a good solution, especially when Each morning, as I pray for our leaders, I also dealing with suicidal terrorists. pray that God may prevail on the hearts and minds of The United States has attacked before it has our enemies. I pray for the hapless young minds that are examined its own acts of terrorism abroad—in Iraq and brainwashed and molded by Osama Bin Laden. But Latin America—through faulty foreign policy. The until those prayers are answered, may God speed our politicians never seemed to open a dialogue on why the military response to convey our message: Terrorism people of the Middle East or other countries might be will not succeed against the free nations of the world. angry at our nation and its hurtful globalism, and this David E. Broscius bothers me deeply. Philadelphia S. Sebastian Petsu Philadelphia.

2. Michael Kelly uses the word pacifist to represent everything he dislikes about anyone to the left 5. The bombing of Afghanistan demonstrates that of Michael Kelly (commentary, Oct. 2). His rage-driven President Bush was not speaking the truth when he said theory is that you’re either for total, massive war or that the United States is not carrying out a war against you’re a brainless pacifist waiting to be conquered. It the people of that nation. Given the massive air power isn’t possible that you might want surgical attacks, deployed to the area, there will be a tremendous loss of gradual diplomacy to gather a coalition, stepped up civilian lives. The question we all need to ask is: intelligence to smoke out the perpetrators, serious WHY? support for the resistance against the Taliban, or any of As long as half of the world’s population lives a multitude of options short of annihilation of on $2 per day or less, there will be people who resort to Afghanistan. Kelly doesn’t see the vast differences individual acts of terrorism. Hundreds of billions of between this and World War II. dollars will continue to be spent on wars. This money, The trouble for people like Kelly is that his is, plus a transformation of the economy, has the potential like Vietnam, a battle for hearts and minds, as well as a to begin to eliminate poverty in the world for all time. hunt for the guilty. We should wipe out Osama bin Such a strategy could create a truly secure world. When Laden and other terrorists (as we should have after their the bombing of the people of Afghanistan is viewed in previous crimes), and then we should take a long look this light, it can only be seen as a criminal act of at the reasons they are able to get as much support as insanity. they have: poverty; hopelessness; desperation and Steven Halpern isolation. Philadelphia Neil Greenberg Melrose Park

Unit 3- Influencing Government Letter to the Editor, Philadelphia Inquirer – October 7 & 8, 2001

Name: 5.

Interpreting Views Liberal Directions Conservative  Read the five Letters to the Editor on the reverse side of this paper.  Briefly describe the viewpoint expressed in each letter, and underline the part of the letter that led you to your decision.  Place the number of the article on the political spectrum below.  You may use your Liberal v. Conservative handout for additional assistance.