Bases in Iraq aren’t allowed

I wrote a letter in late April about the fact that, "One of the �benchmarks’ that Bush included in the supplemental funding bill for Iraq is the `Hydro-Carbon Law.’" Basically this law would allow 81 percent of Iraq’s oil reserves to be grabbed by American and British oil companies. Some readers may have thought that we wouldn’t do such a thing. But consider what the White House recently announced.

On May 31, The Daily Star reported that, "President Bush envisions a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea." U.S. troops have been in Korea more than 50 years. Tony Snow, Bush’s spokesman, said our troops would provide "the so-called over-the-horizon support that is necessary from time to time to come to the assistance of the Iraqis. But you do not want the United States forever in the front."

What’s "over-the-horizon" support? I think it’s double-speak for the protection of U.S. oil companies. It will take time to tap Iraq’s oil reserves and many Iraqis may not be thrilled that we’re doing that. The troops will have to be constantly looking "over the horizon" to be sure some angry Iraqis are not coming to blow up U.S. oil installations!

Once more I’m appalled _ especially because installing permanent military basis in Iraq is against the law! Congress has twice passed, and the president has signed, legislation that prohibits the U.S. from spending money to establish a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq.

I hope Congress speaks, no, shouts out about this new vision of Bush’s. Actually, I think it’s been Bush’s vision all along. The whole Iraq war was and is about oil. It’s time to call for impeachment. We have been lied to, and that’s an impeachable offense.

Kate Ryan
Delhi

Punishments for criminals have changed over the years.

Most crimes today carry lesser sentences than they did 50 years ago. Only a few states today actually use the death penalty, and parole can allow many prisoners back into society after serving only one-quarter of the time sentenced. This is a problem, especially when it comes to pedophiles.

When people commit multiple murders, there is a guarantee that they will not get out of jail until they are no longer a threat to society, if they get out at all. However, some pedophiles victimize many children and can be out of jail in as little as nine years. This is outrageous. Hundreds of studies have shown that pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. So why are these predators allowed out in about 10 years? They can still hurt children. The difference is that this time they may learn from their mistakes, making them harder to catch.

Pedophiles should either not be allowed the chance for parole or the sentences should be extended. A person who sexually harms children, causing so much physical and emotional damage, should not be allowed out for a least 20 years.

I still think that is not long enough, but maybe that would keep our children a little safer. People need to fight to make this happen. We need to join together, petition our representatives, write letters to papers, protest (peacefully), and make it known that we will not tolerate these insufficient punishments.

Mannon James
Walton
James is a senior at Walton Central School. James and other students have written letters to the editor as part of Judy Lazina’s composition class.