EDITOR: I enjoyed your article on the monorail ["Drink the Kool-Aid," Oct 3]. However, I am surprised that no one has noticed (or made hay) out of the fact that our beloved former port commissioner (and monorail hater), Henry Aronson, lives in the Newmark Tower, one of the downtown condos that will be directly next to the monorail if it gets built. I too live in the Newmark, but unlike Henry I am excited about the prospect of the monorail being situated in front of our building. FYI: Henry didn't become so interested in the monorail campaign (or, to be more accurate, interested in killing it) as long as it was running down Fifth Avenue.

Apparently, other people's property rights are not as important to him as his own (big surprise).

Mysterious Newmark Resident, via e-mail

EDITOR: Maybe if Amy Jenniges and Sandeep Kaushik spent more time researching the issues and less time picking on some of the less-than-clever signage at last week's protest, they would know that what they should really be debunking is the line given by the Bush administration and mainstream media, playing down the role of oil in the impending war with Iraq ["Don't Be Fooled," Oct 10].

The oil connection is not just about getting the largely untapped Iraqi oil supply on the market, it's about putting a pro-Western government in place that will allow the U.S. to get the oil cheaply and without regulation. With unfettered access to Iraqi oil, the already weakened OPEC alliance would be destabilized, considerably strengthening U.S. control of the lucrative region. And, counter to Amy and Sandeep's claims that other UN countries are not "jumping on board," France, Italy, and Russia are all lining up to get in on the action after the Bush administration (and our sons, brothers, husbands, and lovers) bomb their way to Baghdad.

It's estimated that less than 10 years after Hussein is ousted, oil production would increase from 2.5 million barrels a day to 7 million. And if you think that even half the profit from that enterprise is going to go to rebuilding the devastated Iraqi infrastructure, well... maybe Amy and Sandeep can think of a more clever phrase than "the joke's on you."

Emily, via e-mail

AMY JENNIGES: Yes, without a doubt, lefty sloganeering has been bad since the '80s. But I understand that you kids who "write" for The Stranger are exceptionally witty and clever. And yet, I did not notice any suggestions for more interesting and to-the-point chants in you and Mr. Kaushik's rant about the current round of anti-war slogans.

Be clever--think of new ones, and better yet, get the stick out of your ass and go to an organizing meeting, [where] you and Sandeep [could] present some really fresh and exciting slogans and catch phrases.

Too much trouble? I know, The Stranger's staff is good at pissing on themselves and whining, but you all get straight F's [in] creativity and engagement in the world around you.

Deran Ludd, via e-mail

EDITOR: I thought your article in the October 10 issue of The Stranger was more intriguing than factual. Do you truly believe that George W. Bush's alleged war on Iraq has nothing to do with oil? I think you bring up a strong point in stating that Bush could just lift the sanctions, but I believe we all know that it takes much more than that.

Is it not true that American presidents' [approval] ratings have always been higher in times of war? Also, your point in bringing up the definition of "terrorist" is absolutely obsolete. Terrorists are simply those who "invoke terror in others by means of intimidation or threatened force, or who inspire with fear."

In my opinion, Ken Lay and friends invoked horrible terror in all of their employees and many of their stockholders (who I'd say had some fear for their well-being after losing much or all of their assets via white-collar criminals). And here's one more question to keep you thinking: If Saddam Hussein ran a country with no valuable resources whatsoever, would we still be pondering whether or not to dislodge him?

Jordan Droppert, via e-mail

EDITOR: Just after hearing that our Senator Cantwell voted in favor of Bush's attack on Iraq, I picked up The Stranger and saw the ill-informed article "Don't Be Fooled." It is a shame that your city desk writers did so little research into the role of oil in a war with Iraq.

First, the Iraqi oil sanctions have nothing to do with keeping Iraq's oil out of the U.S. market. America currently imports over 167,000 barrels of oil from Iraq per day. That's right--we currently give millions of dollars per day to the "axis of evil."

Next, France, Russia, and China do not need a war for oil because their oil companies have already signed contracts with Iraq for 44 billion barrels. A U.S.-led war in Iraq would nullify these contracts and allow the oil to go to friends of the Bush administration.

Additionally, all the unexplored reserves in Iraq, estimated to be the largest untapped oil reservoirs on the planet, would go to Unocal et al. With this oil under U.S. control, the U.S. could then ignore OPEC price controls and Saudi Arabian demands for the Palestinians.

By their very nature, slogans cannot cover every facet of a subject, but for an invasion of Iraq, "No War for Oil" pretty much sums it up.

Burt Culver, via e-mail

EDITOR: Amy Jenniges writes that "only about 3,000 people protested in 1991 on the eve of the Gulf War." I can only guess that she did not live in Seattle at that time ["Mainstream Dissent," Oct 10].

On the eve of the Gulf War, on January 14, 1991, at least 30,000 protestors--the absolute lowest estimate at the time, and I suspect the real number was over 50,000--converged from various directions at Seattle Central Community College. Over the next several days, as the air war in the Gulf began, a multi-block area of downtown Seattle, centered in front of the Federal Building, was occupied by thousands of demonstrators. As for the mainstream, at one point Mayor Rice spoke against the war from the podium of the demonstration, accompanied there by eight of the nine members of the city council.

I marched in both that 1991 protest and recently on October 6. I agree that there were a lot of visibly mainstream people on October 6, and I was glad to see that. Still, let's remember that the people of Seattle have done this before, in larger numbers, and not all that long ago.

As Congress and the president steer the country toward an unnecessary war, I am glad I live in a city where thousands of people are out in the streets saying "not in my name."

Joe Mabel, via e-mail

CHARLES MUDEDE: I'm responding to your article about the I-Spy shooting ["4th Ave. Shootout," Oct 10]. The violence/shooting that occurred at I-Spy isn't because of RAP. It's because of the PEOPLE. It can happen anywhere. People get in arguments, fights, and whatnot, and some people [react] the wrong way. But it seems like you're applying that only to "rap fans," "gangstas," and "niggaz," which is completely ignorant. A lot of people try to make themselves appear a lot "harder" then they are--it's a fact that most of us won't admit, and it's not just in the hiphop/rap community--and a lot of people do this by buying guns, etc., and yeah, they do use them for stupid-ass reasons. But the way you wrote your article is a slap in the face to rap and [performer] Neema [Khorrami]. So, my friend, just to let you know, I believe YOU are pretty ignorant.

Tom, via e-mail

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS: Two weeks ago, we neglected to place the word "Preview" at the top of Barley Blair's article on Printer's Devil's new show 21 Shots, nearly causing the death-by-indignation of certain hyper-touchy hacks. And last week, we neglected to include this correction on our letters page. Our apologies for all of this hideousness.