Document text
Letters to the Editor : Despite all that have died, the arms race marches on The U.S. doubled its share of world arms exports between 1981 and 1991 - sweeping past the Soviet Union into first place - exporting $59 billion during 1987-1991 with $35 billion going to developing countries. Saudi Arabia imported $29.7 billion from 1987-1991. Iraq was second with $16.3 billion; Iran, $8.8 billion; Syria $5.9 billion; Israel, $5 billion; Egypt, $4.2 billion. Since September 11th, the U.S. is more willing to sell or give away weapons to countries that pledge their assistance to the global war on terror to the tune of over $35 billion in arms export deals in 2001-2002 alone. Three hundred thousand children are currently active combatants in over 20 armed conflicts around the world. Over 45 million people, 80 percent non-combatant civilians, mostly women and children, have been killed in more than 170 wars since the end of WWII. Many more have become permanently crippled. Over 30 million people are refugees. Why wasn't Saddam taken out during the Gulf War? Without a bad guy in the region, it would be bad for the arms business. Perhaps arms sales are the 21st century's answer to population control, but then AIDS is doing a good job of this in Africa with millions dying each year. Meanwhile, are we more secure? DAs will file fewer cases, jails overcrowded, courts backlogged for years, less local police, cuts to school and health care programs, unemployment rising, and how much for a gallon of gas? Check out www.cdi.org Are more weapons bringing more PEACE? Marie Morehead, Talent Riot police in town while the Tidings sleeps Was the Ashland Daily Tidings asleep at the wheel on March 5? Nowhere in the paper's March 6 story covering the previous day's "Books Not Bombs" march in Ashland did I read that a team of Douglas County riot police equipped with batons, tear gas, bean bag guns and firearms faced off against a group of peaceful demonstrators in the parking lot of the National Guard Armory. This show of police force is news in any town, especially when such a display is the most prominent show of a military-style police force in memory. It seems like this would be news when this force is threatened against a group composed mostly of minors whose only legal offense was temporarily impeding traffic while marching in the street and whose main threat was held in songs and chants. Where was the Daily Tidings reporter? A photographer? This town isn't so big that news like this should go completely uncovered by our local paper. I'm hoping for more responsible reporting in the future. Scott Harding , Ashland Guest forum: Bush's strategy is not part of 9/11 By Jon Vote Talent The Bush Administration has been utilizing an axiom that politicians have been aware of for a long time: That if you repeat something long enough, people will start to believe it regardless of its veracity. The W-mantra of a link between Iraq and 9/11 has left a large percent of the population with the belief that the upcoming war with Iraq is about avenging 9/11. The problem is that there just isn't any credible evidence of any involvement with Baghdad, and in fact much evidence of involvement with our new friends in Bush's quest to nail Saddam. Assuming that al-Qaida and the Taliban were directly responsible for the attacks, the question at this point involves who was linked to them. Let's look at a few other countries in the region to see what passes for a link in my book. How about Saudi Arabia? Any link there? Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. Eleven of the fifteen hijackers were Saudis. Much of the money to fund the operation came from Saudi Arabia. In fact according to the FBI no less than Princess Haifa Al-Faisal herself of the royal family was funding two of the 9/11 hijackers to the tune of about $3500 a month. That looks like a link to me. Moving on to Pakistan - we see an even closer involvement. The CIA has reported links between al-Qaida and Pakistani intelligence as far back as 1997. Prior to 9/11, there were hundreds of Pakistani advisors in Afghanistan. Why were there Pakistani military advisers in Afghanistan in the first place? They were giving support and training to the very same Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers. I'd call that a link too. So what evidence is there against Iraq? The best "evidence" that the Administration has presented is a non-aggression pact between Iraq and al-Qaida. This is your basic "if you don't attack us we won't attack you" type of thing. If I remember correctly, this is a lot like the deal we had with the former Soviet Union during the cold war. Sorry, but not exactly what I would call a link. The Administration looks the other way when it comes to any complicity between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and 9/11 because of their war obsession with Iraq. They need these "allies" in their crusade against Saddam Hussein even if it means letting them off the hook for any involvement they might have had, whether directly or indirectly with the worst tragedy in US History. The attack against the World Trade Center stunned the world. Demonstrations of solidarity with the American people came from all over. Even in places not known as supporters of the West, people were moved - as in Iran, where a moment of silence was observed during a national soccer match. Now, many American embassies have been reporting back to Washington the alarming news that a majority of the population in their host countries believe that George W Bush is more of a threat to world piece than Saddam Hussein. After 9/11, we asked ourselves why the Muslim Extremists hated us - now we find ourselves asking why our European allies hate us. Bush has squandered the post 9/11 goodwill of the world to pursue his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. I don't know why Bush is doing what he is doing, but I do know why he is not doing it. Whatever the reason, it is clearly not to avenge 9/11. Sorry kids, adults are clueless By Andrew C. Bangsberg Ashland To you Christians who want war, thou shall not kill. To you Republicans who want war, aren't you a Christian? To you Democrats who want war, join the Republicans who want war. If you're not a Christian, but want war, pick a domestic war to win first. Like poverty, abused children, cancer, broke schools, alcoholics, and lonely seniors. If you are fighting a war on the flag itself, you lost your personal war of being credible. When will we war the war on drugs, on SUVs, on that plastic crap you buy your kid that rapes this planet of its right to breathe for us? How about a war for love? A war in the name of GOD as he blesses America, oops, thou shall not kill, never mind. Here we go, if you want war, I mean really want war, make sure all of your loved ones are on the battlefield. That way, when somebody else gets ticked at the US, you can say, "My family died/fought for this country, which makes it OK to kill you too." Or maybe you don't need a reason for war, after all, none of us have ever seen a time of peace, that might lead us to believe it is not possible to solve any issue without war. And then there is the war on war - who will win this one? I bet our children's children will win the war on war and be very ashamed of us in general for how we would wish, support, march for, and otherwise fund killing, killing, killing. Sorry kids, we adults don't know how to get along yet. None of us do. We used to think slavery was OK, Sorry kids. LINKS: DAILY TIDINGS: Main | News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Opinion | Columnists | AP News | Subscribe | Archives | Weather | Classifieds | Contact Us | Privacy REVELS: Main | Calendar | Dining | Movies | T.V. OTHER: Road Cams Copyright 2003 Ashland Daily Tidings 541.482.3456. 1661 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, OR 97520. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. - Advertisers -