Aggression

Why is the U.S. mainstream media so bashful about reporting the major offensive launched two weeks ago by the Croatian and Bosnian Muslim forces? Several aspects of this coordinated assault, directed mainly on two areas--to the southeast of Bihac and at Kupres--should provoke very harsh commentaries if not straightforward condemnation. What is worse, the Bihac offensive was generated and organized in a demilitarized "safe haven" with apparently open support of the U.N. peacekeeping forces (from Bangladesh)

It is really ironic reading all those letters and commentaries from Serbs and Serbia sympathizers expressing their profound shock and anger against NATO's unintentional bombing of civilians. There was never a peep out of them condemning their fellow Serbs when they deliberately killed more than 300,000 innocent civilians during their four years of aggression in Croatia and Bosnia. How they carry on about the funeral of one Serb soldier, while hundreds of young and old Kosovo male Albanian civilians are being murdered!

Psychologist Robert R. Sears, who was studied as a gifted child and who grew up to guide the continuation of the same study, has died, it was learned Friday. Sears was 80 and died Monday at his home in Menlo Park, said a spokesman for Stanford University, where he was professor emeritus. Sears was chairman of Stanford's psychology department from 1953 until 1961. He took over one of the longest-running studies in psychological history in 1956, when Lewis Terman, its original director and founding professor, died.

Re "Changing Warhorses in Midstream," Commentary, June 17: Michael Barone's comparison of Bush and Lincoln is beyond bizarre. The last sentence of his piece, however, "Throwing out this president would make a difference," is correct. In a dramatic reversal of past elections, Americans would at last be rejecting blatant imperialism, war for oil, unjustifiable preemptive aggression, an unending stream of lies, corporate greed and war profiteering, and the deaths of so many Americans and the citizens of nations we attack.

In regard to the bombing of Libya, what have we accomplished? Well, we had the satisfaction of hitting back at terrorism--that feels good! And the country is caught up in a feeling of euphoria. But what have we really done? We've united the Arab world against the United States. We've incited the terrorists to greater hatred and stronger aggression against the United States and our allies. We've made American tourists hostages of terrorism, and caused worldwide fear of travel.

I am amazed that a woman could have such a skewed view of what society does or does not approve of ("Frightening Messages From the Movies," by Charlotte Low Allen, Nov. 13). If Allen will only turn on her television set at almost any hour of the day or night she will see examples of male aggression of which our society approves: football, boxing, wrestling, hockey, etc. How about the aggressiveness of journalists and stock market traders? What "The Accused" makes an effort to neutralize by shining the bright light of recognition upon it, is male criminal behavior.

Here we go again. In response to the Iranian Silkworm missile attack on Kuwaiti ships flying the American flag, we've taken out an Iranian oil-drilling rig in the Persian Gulf. President Reagan called that response "prudent yet restrained." But what it really represents is a return to the very same military strategy that caused us so much grief in the Vietnam War.

"U.N. -- Time for a Deadline" (editorial, Feb. 6) is wrong to say the United Nations risks irrelevance if it doesn't set a date for military force. What's clear is that this government and the nation's media are drunk on power, swaggering across the world stage demanding all problems be resolved on our terms. Our allies don't see it that way, and one wonders how many Americans would favor war if Fox, CNN and other media giants were not bombarding them with propaganda. The issue is not Iraq but whether the world's only superpower will use its strength wisely -- or become another of history's bullies.

I found your March 11 cover story articles quite timely and vitally important ('Rated C for Confusing" and "Does the Ad Say It All?'). It is unbelievable what passes for PG-13 these days. Sex and sexual humor, drugs and alcohol and their use, profanity, violence, aggression-these are not age appropriate, yet are constant elements and themes in the majority of PG-13 movies out right now. What messages are being sent to our young people, the hope of our future? Is it any wonder that today's teens seem so lost, angry, aggressive, confused about what's real and what they see in movies and TV-that a disagreement and perceived slight can be dealt with by using a gun?