Very disappointing front page on 9/11
When I opened up my Daily Herald on 9/11, I could not believe my eyes. Instead of a solemn remembrance of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 making the headline, I read a splashy tabloid headline about our local mobster reality show. Below the headline is a story about troop levels in Iraq that at least on this date, had you mentioned 9/11, would have given more context to why we are fighting this war.
For two generations we pumped petro-dollars into countries with horrible leaders and failed societies. All the time we looked the other way because it was not our problem to solve. Then on Sept. 11, 2001, the ideology of hate spawned by those failed societies unleashed death on our shores, and we could no longer look the other way. Three thousand Americans lost their lives on that day. Hundreds of Americans had lost their lives leading up to that day in smaller terrorist attacks since the 1970s.
Now we have gone on offense, trying to create a decent democratic society of some sort in the heart of the Middle East at a cost of almost 4,000 more lives of our finest citizen soldiers. The fight is tougher, and the cost more tragic than was planned for. The nation is now divided because of that. Now more than ever we need to remember why we fight and the cost we will incur again should we give up, go home and let the terrorists set up shop again. This time in a country with vast oil resources to finance their plans for the world.
On this date, is this not a more important story than some tripe about "Joey the Clown" Lombardo?
Richard Armour
Arlington Heights
Is Iraq all about oil after all?
In news of Iraqi "benchmarks" there is little detailed information on what these entail. A case in point is the "oil law," generally described as an agreement for sharing future oil revenues among political/religious factions in Iraq. What is rarely reported is that such laws were written by the U.S. State Department and the oil law requires Iraq to relinquish 70 percent of its oil resources to U.S. and western oil companies.
Oil income constitutes 95 percent of Iraq's economy, and the U.S. expects the new Iraq to flourish on only 30 percent of its resources?
I am not referring to oil money being used for repayment of the hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars spent on the war. That idea has long been abandoned by the Bush administration. The oil law calls for the Iraqis to hand over ownership of 70 percent of their precious natural resource to privately owned, western corporations. These companies will be free to drill, export and profit while the U.S. will be required to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq to provide security for their enterprise. Our politicians deem this a "vital U.S. interest" and some are now claiming that we must be committed to stay for many more years.
Is this why we invaded Iraq? Is it any wonder that Iraqis are dragging their feet on passing such benchmarks? It's one more reason we should get out sooner rather than later.
Joe Sonnefeldt
Mount Prospect
Hanania wrong about 9/11 lessons
By conjecture, innuendo and assumption, along with a dose of Monday morning quarterbacking, Ray Hanania tries to say that "we" have not learned much since 9/11. We have learned something about Hanania. By using the phrases "sounded Arabic enough," "Officials seem intentionally unclear," "citizen terrorism vigilante" and "personal argument that was most likely driven by racism," he displays his ability to accuse others of shortcomings he harbors within himself.
Don Parker
Northfield