War necessary to ensure safety of United States
Before Dec. 7, 1941, there was a vigorous debate in the United States about our nation's foreign policy. Many criticized U.S. aid to Great Britain, suggesting that this action risked involving our nation in another European war. Others suggested that America had no business meddling in Asian squabbles by imposing sanctions on Japan as a result of that nation's invasion of China. A few Americans were even openly sympathetic to the Axis powers, including such an eminent figure as Charles Lindbergh.
That debate ended when Japanese torpedo planes and bombers devastated the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Americans were killed in a sneak attack, and what had been an interesting subject of discussion became something else: war.
So it is'or should be'in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. Jonathan Linder's musings about the need \to empathize with the worries of people who do not agree with our policies"" are worst than irrelevant'they are harmful (""U.S. should look within for answers to Sept. 11,"" Oct. 30). The current military action is not about our policies toward Iraq or Israel. It is about the deaths of 5,000 Americans in a cruel, calculated and unprovoked act of war.
Our fellow citizens are dead, and those who planned, organized, funded, supported and advocated this slaughter are still at large, celebrating the success of their attack against America, and no doubt preparing for future attacks. Until every last one of these butchers is killed or captured, no American is safe. And any government that aids or harbors these bloodthirsty bandits must be utterly destroyed, as an example to any other government that might ever consider siding with the enemies of civilization.
This is not ""supremacist jargon.""This is reality. Osama bin Laden had called upon Muslims to kill as many Americans as possible, wherever possible, whenever possible. It would be suicidal for America to allow such an enemy to survive.
The debate is over, the war has begun and the only question that need now be answered is: Whose side are you on?
Officer treatment of guests unfair at game
Last weekend, my brother and his friends from the University of Iowa came to Madison for the football game. During the second quarter, Crowd Control Officer Sherry Severson stopped next to my brother and told him and his friend that they were standing too close to the aisle. They proceeded to move over a few seats. Next, she demanded to see their tickets. She looked at them and determined that the two of them were not sitting in their assigned seats and she radioed for ""back up."" She escorted the two of them out of the student section, demanded to see their IDs, confiscated their tickets and kicked them out of the stadium. She said that the police were instructed to remove anybody from the stadium who was not sitting in their assigned seats.
My brother and his friend were sitting about four seats away from their assigned seat and anyone who has ever sat in the student section knows that nobody sits in their exact seat. My brother and his friend drove three hours from Iowa to see the game and missed more than half of it for doing nothing wrong. Have we reached a point in Madison where the police can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want? Is this how the city wants to welcome people who come to visit Madison? The police are here to serve and protect the people of Madison, not to harass and treat them unfairly.
