The London bombs reveal flaws in the Iraq argument

When Bush supporters are asked why we preemptively struck Iraq, they will tell you terrorism must be stopped. When you point out that Iraq had no link to 9/11, they then argue the people of Iraq deserve to be free.

When you note Bush's hypocrisy in not freeing the peoples of the Sudan, North Korea, Cuba or a host of other countries, they then state that a democratic Iraq is key to a peaceful Middle East.

When you point out that the European states of the 20th century failed miserably in turning their Middle Eastern colonies into democracies or that America's experiment in nation-building, Vietnam, ended tragically with thousands dead and a communist state, they then answer circularly by claiming, yet again, that terrorism must be stopped.

Terrorism, however, is not being stopped, as shown by the recent events in London. It has been almost four years since 9/11 and two since we invaded Iraq. Bin Laden is free, young men are dying every day and the terrorism seen in London and Madrid, which is still equally possible here today, continues to occur.

If only America's educators actually taught how erroneous, ideological thinking leads to events like Vietnam, last year's election may have been different. More importantly, if President Bush actually learned such lessons, he would see the disconnect between his own argument and the actual results of Iraq.

TIM IANNINI
Center

---

A kinder response

Here is a view of the world if, after Sept. 11, 2001, our leaders had chosen the path of vulnerability (turning the other cheek) instead of the path of revenge and violence (an eye for an eye):

Our new identity as equal members of the world family makes it impossible to destroy lives on any soil because violence perpetrated on one of us is violence perpetrated on us all;

Our main priority is to ensure that the basic needs of all people are met and that each person's dignity is restored;

Our response is quick and generous to crises, such as genocide, AIDS, the destruction of homes and displacement of people in Zimbabwe, and people dying daily of preventable diseases;

We are champions of human rights ensuring due process to all people, and the use of torture is unthinkable;

We are dismantling and eliminating our nuclear arsenal and other weapons of mass destruction, and other countries are following our lead;

We are leaders in protecting the Earth's resources and ensuring they are shared equally by all members of the world family.

It is still possible to create this new view of the world. The sacrifice of our fallen and maimed brothers and sisters would be the catalyst for beginning a new paradigm in our nation -- a paradigm of good overcoming evil. Memorializing them would be their children and future generations living out their lives, able to participate in creating this new chapter in the life of their country.

Is it too late? It is never too late for the people to find their voice.

LYNN OTTY
Point Breeze

---

Losing funds hurts

In regard to "State Medicaid Cuts Could Cost Schools: Some Parents May Have to Pay for Services for Disabled Children" (July 10) and "Rendell Approves Pay Raise" (July 9), I have a 6-year-old autistic son who needs many services, and I am concerned about how I will afford it in the near future.

My first comment is: How can these legislators justify their pay increases, when our children are going to suffer if parents cannot afford the services their children so desperately need? The lawmakers claim the raises are justified because they put in long hours. Well guess what, being a parent of a child with special needs is a 24/7 job 365 days a year for the rest of the child's life!

Currently I do not work because I stay home to take my child to therapy and work with him when he is not in therapy. Now I will probably have to find a part-time job to pay for services, which of course will increase our income bracket. We make a decent income; however, we do have a mortgage, car payments, another son and many bills. We do not go on vacation or have expensive things. When I do purchase something, it is usually therapeutic things for my son.

So while the lawmakers are having a great summer in vacation homes that they can now afford, they should remember how they are cheating our children out of a chance of becoming productive citizens in the future and how these children did not choose to have a disability.

JOY L. WILLNER
South Fayette

---

Support Bush

After New York (9/11) and London (7/7), what's next, Paris? Or will it be Rome? It's anybody's guess.

I believe the big civilized cities would be wise to join Bush's anti-terrorism efforts: To act now in close cooperation with the United States, and to ignore the weak, misguided United Nations.

SIDNEY BARNARTT
Monroeville

---

Vote Santorum out

I just read about Sen. Rick Santorum's book ("Santorum Book Stirs Debate on Child Care," July 7). I would love to know what planet he's on. It certainly isn't the same Earth I inhabit.

It's hard to believe there is anyone who thinks women work because they are bored at home and want to ignore the kids. For the last 30 years women have had no choice but to enter the work force, and more now than ever. When good paying jobs are gone and more couples are trying to make ends meet on two salaries or more, it is just inconceivable that a senator could even question women working to help put food on the table and a roof over their families' heads. His wife has the option of staying home with the kids, but most women don't have this luxury.

I hope with my whole being that in November 2006, when Santorum is in a race to keep his Senate seat, all of us who work for an hourly wage remember this book, his cyber-school scandal and the way he has consistently voted against working families over the years, and that we vote him out of office!

LINDA BEAR
Canton

---

Ask the patrons

Would someone please explain to the city planners and the Pittsburgh Gaming Task Force that it's OK for change to take place in this city! "Huge Casino Perils City's Profile" (July 10) details how planners are befuddled by the possibility that a casino will change the look Downtown.

Have any of these planners actually looked at Downtown lately? Are they worried about upsetting the Downtown workforce -- most of whom jump on a bus after work and head back to the suburbs?

Have planners talked with out-of-town visitors who come to a ballgame and are shocked to find that the city almost shuts down on weekends and that there aren't enough places to get lunch even in the Golden Triangle?

Isn't it time to infuse some life into our city? We shouldn't be content to smile when Monday Night Football shows the fountain at Point State Park once or twice a year if we aren't in the city once in a while ourselves, keeping it vibrant and active.

Let the planners talk to some residents who frequent the few areas within city limits that still bustle: the Strip District, Carson Street, the ballpark during a Pirates game or the riverfront trails. Ask the people who frequent these places if a big casino would keep them from coming into the city.

Planners, wake up! Change is good, especially when we've seen the alternative, stagnation, firsthand.

If a big casino will attract more visitors and extra growth will allow restaurants and stores to stay open on weekends, then maybe, just maybe, some of our suburban neighbors will come into the city and have dinner before a show or play.

Why encourage the same old slow progress this city is notorious for, as we disappoint visitors and watch the young people move out in droves. Let's make this city shine again!

DARELL RICE
Pleasant Hills

---

The benefits of bicycle-riding outweigh the risks

One of the most common reasons that people offer for avoiding bicycling is that they fear for their safety. The front-page story "Safety a Casualty of Biking's Popularity" (June 18) highlights safety as a problem by focusing on recent dramatic bicycle accidents that have led to acute injury or death. I hope readers will not let the Post-Gazette report scare them away from riding their bicycles.

While bicycle riders certainly should follow the advice offered in the story -- using safety equipment and practicing defensive riding -- they should also know that bicycling is not uniquely dangerous. In fact, driving a motor vehicle, something that many readers do every day, is extremely dangerous. According to Center for Disease Control statistics, motor vehicle traffic was responsible for 44,065 deaths in 2002, almost half of all unintentional injuries and deaths in the United States. And people receive no health benefits from driving motor vehicles.

Although readers should understand the risks of driving, they should also know that traffic accidents rank far down the list of all causes of death. In 2002, heart disease was the leading cause of death among Americans, continuing a decades-long trend.

The cardiovascular health benefits associated with routine bicycling greatly outweigh the risks of acute injury. Consider how widespread, routine bicycling would impact the leading cause of death in this country -- heart disease. Readers should fear the consequences of failing to ride their bikes everyday.

PETER CRAMER
Wilkinsburg