<CENTER><B>Letters to the Editor</B></CENTER>

War with Iraq is definitely not the answer

Editor:

With deep concern about the future of our country and world civilization, I wish to express my opposition to a unilateral attack on Iraq. A war on Iraq could easily become a regional war. Are we prepared to wage "total war" in pursuit of a regime change in Iraq, when any number of other countries, including Pakistan, India and Israel also have nuclear weapons? Many more countries have chemical and biological weapons.

What country will we target next? And if we are successful in flaunting international law, what is to prevent countries such as India from attacking Pakistan, Russia attacking Chechnya, China attacking Taiwan? Where would it end? In the meantime, while the governments of nations that have been our friends continue to support us, at least with lip service, their citizens will most certainly be divided over this war, with serious consequences to their national stability. International terrorism would know no boundaries.

In our own country, all of us will feel the loss of civil rights. As more and more resources go to a war without end, the American dream will evaporate, with money allocated to education, health care, safe highways, clean water, and safe communities going instead to a war machine that will never have enough. As our infrastructure deteriorates, the disruption of overseas oil supplies will devastate an already ailing economy.

The reasons to oppose a war with Iraq are as numerous as the military and civilian causalities that will occur should we take unilateral action in a war without end. Surely a country as talented, intelligent and wealthy as the United States of American can find a better way to bring democracy and peace to a world desperately in need of both.

Michael Durgain

Cottonwood

Making sense of state's gaming propositions

Editor:

Three Indian gaming propositions on the November ballot can be quite confusing to the voters. Which one do you vote for: 200, 201 or 202?

Each proposition provides more income to the Indian Nations. Also, each provides certain percentages of gambling revenue be shared with the state. This shared money will provide much-needed help for our school systems and other needy projects.

I would personally not like to have gambling at all, but since that assuredly will not happen, which is the better deal? To figure it out look at the "Do The Math" page on the JoeArizona.com web site.

• Money back to AZ: $300 million/year (prop 201), $89 million/year (prop 202) or $25 million/year (prop 200).

• Money for education: $70 million/year (prop 201), $39 million/year (prop 202), $19 million/year (prop 200).

• Money for deficit reduction: Yes (prop 201), No (prop 202), No (prop 200).

• Makes casinos open their books: Yes (prop 201, No (prop 202, No (prop 200).

• Length of law: 10 years (prop 201), 23 years (prop 202), 40 years (prop 20).

Proposition 201 protects indian casinos and tribal income, helps the Indians and all Arizonians; gives nearly 1 million per day to Arizona; helps reduce Arizona’s billion dollar deficit and keeps gambling where it belongs – on reservations and racetracks. Most importantly, the law can be changed in 10 years if necessary. It also makes the casinos open their books and strengthens Arizona’s gambling regulations.

Indian gambling is more than a $1 billion per year business that benefits approximately 70,000 Arizona Indians. Arizona Indian tribes will benefit greatly no matter what propositions passes. However, Proposition 201 provides the greatest overall benefit to the people of Arizona.

Do the math. Which is greater, $300 million/year (prop 201, $89 million/year (prop 202) or $25 million/year (prop 200)?

H. Leon Raper

Camp Verde

Camp Verde needs Brenda Hauser and Tony Gioia

Editor:

It would be naive on my part to believe that the public official that I support and I will agree on all issues.

One major issue that Brenda Hauser, Tony Gioia and I do agree on is the fight for the preservation of the Verde River.

If you have a well or irrigate in Camp Verde or believe in the preservation of the Verde River, you should do everything in your power to stop the recall of Brenda Hauser and Tony Gioia.

Brenda and Tony have for the last four years fought hard for preserving the Verde River. If we were to lose the support of these individuals on this issue alone, we well surely lose major support for our Verde River.

Do not sign the recall petitions being circulated against Brenda or Tony. Camp Verde needs these devoted individuals.

Jim Ash

Camp Verde

Comments

Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comment submissions may not exceed a 200 word limit, and in order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.