Letters
Hizbullah: Arab world sees a different face
Your April 25 article "Why Hizbullah may be the next terror target for US," in its analysis, missed the point that Israel had invaded Lebanon and claimed a security zone in south Lebanon. The Israelis stayed in Lebanon more than 15 years. They diverted Lebanese river water, transported topsoil, and kept a prison full of resistance fighters, but finally had to leave because of Hizbullah.
In Lebanon, Hizbullah is considered a liberator. However, the daily violence and terror committed by Israel against the Palestinians is widely considered to be an act of self-defense.
I do not condone acts of terror by Hizbullah or Israel. I hope our president will be as determined and resolute in enforcing the Middle East "road map" as he was in routing the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Joe Assir
Sugar Land, Texas
Regarding the April 23 article "The other boots on the ground: embedded press": I agree with much of the article's analysis of the embedded-reporter system recently used in Iraq. I personally could not watch CNN or MSNBC news on television because of its cheerleading quality. I found myself reading foreign-language newspapers online to get a more-rounded view of what was occurring overseas.
A professor quoted in the article asks: "But what if something terrible happened, like we lost 300 people in a single day? What would be the media coverage then?" I would ask: Why were we not shown the hundreds of Iraqis who died daily? War is an ugly business. I believe US viewers need to be made aware of the results of their war. What if we are given the decision to go to war again? Will we think of war's ugliness? Or will CNN-type images of war be used in making that future critical decision?
Dirk Murphy
Grand Canyon, Ariz.
The April 23 article "Native Hawaiians want their share of paradise" fails to accurately present the history of Hawaii and the present situation of the Hawaiian people.
Any analysis of lands does not start with the 1898 illegal annexation of Hawaii, but rather the "regime change" of 1893 described by President Cleveland as an "act of war" against a small, peace-loving nation. The sugar oligarchy in collusion with US diplomats and the military began a takeover of the lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom that culminated with the 1898 occupation of our nation that continues to this day.
The true history is not taught in the American schools, so it is not surprising that most US citizens are ignorant of these facts. For those who wish to learn more, please see hawaiiankingdom.org or read Tom Coffman's "Nation Within: The Story of America's Annexation of the Nation of Hawaii."
Michael Kamakau Grace
Anahola, Hawaii
Your April 23 article "If Nike defends itself, is that a commercial?" clarified the issue for me.
Imagine a televised presidential-candidate debate. Each party immediately rushes to the courts claiming intentionally misleading statements or lies and demands the court impose large monetary fines on the other. What an unworkable mess. These debates do work because the harm to a proven liar's image would be disastrous to the liar.
I feel the same debate scenario would work should it be applied to Nike. There are plenty of watchdog groups eager to expose any Nike falsehood. How could Nike defend itself with handcuffs on and a Supreme Court gag?
Richard Eitel
Everett, Wash.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to oped@csps.com.
