'History' wrong in history article

I seem to have an insatiable desire for knowledge, especially local history. I was really enjoying The Californian's article about the moving of the Escallier house and barn and some history about the Escallier family in Temecula. That is, until I got to the part that said Jacques Escallier and his brothers ran a pool hall in what is now Rosa's Cantina. I am no expert on the history of Temecula, but I do know that the land where Rosa's now sits was a parking lot for Security Pacific Bank in the early 1970s. Later, the bank building was demolished and the vault was incorporated into the two-story building that is now adjacent to Rosa's Cantina. So now my question is, how much of the story is fact and how much is fiction?

John Kahler

Murrieta

Officers endangered the public

Assault rifles on a crowded freeway for traffic stops? Are they insane? Who would be to blame if a child was killed on the freeway because someone started shooting .223-caliber rifle rounds at close range? The penetration of these bullets at close range is awesome.

The public should demand an investigation into the unsafe and unnecessary use of high-velocity weapons at close range by law enforcement. The .223-caliber bullet can penetrate bulletproof vests easily, yet was aimed at barechested outlaw bikers. The only justification for law enforcement to arm themselves with the AR-15, M-16, CAR-15 or M4 is for superior firepower against heavily armed "bad guys" such as the "North Hollywood Shootout" or for penetrating the "cover" of an armed assailant shooting at them and possibly wearing body armor. It's interesting that the state of California outlawed assault rifles for the general public, but the police are brandishing them in crowded public areas and putting the citizenry at grave risk while they "protect" you. Well, my question is who is protecting us from them?

What happens when a child is killed by "friendly fire" from an overarmed police force? Would you use a 5-pound sledge hammer to nail small pieces of trim up? Let's demand that the authorities use the right tool for the job so that innocent bystanders don't get killed by "accident."

Paul Dewitz

Temecula

What was the danger, really?

Please, some informed Republican write to explain the imminent nuclear danger from Iraq that this Republican administration was certain of in 2003? Afraid of programs? Intent? How imminent -- six months, one year, two years? You still haven't told us! We have more than 800 intercontinental ballistic missiles, some nuclear tipped; Iran has a nut case and you're afraid of what? Fact 1: Israel destroyed an actual nuclear Iraq facility in 1981. Fact 2: Israel took out a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in 2007. Fact 3: Israel was thought to have been planning to do the same to Iranian atomic plants in 2006. And could and still may be. Explain to us why Israel would not have destroyed an imminent nuclear threat right next door. They have the best intelligence and proven military power in the Middle East. They don't rattle swords and rant, they act on actionable intelligence, not intent!

This Republican administration has given the Arab and Muslim world a place where they can send their poor and unemployed young men to fight the occupiers of Muslim land and to kill and maim Americans and Iraqis. And forever we will remember who said, "Bring them on!" That's his legacy! Bring more troops home now!

Bill Wasley

Murrieta

Terrorism is a permanent condition

Terrorism in our societies will never end, only the degree of it: One individual can cause havoc in any society by sabotage, bombing, poisoning, etc. Small hate groups and fanatics can do a lot of destruction and killings; we cannot prevent this by military or police force as much as we cannot prevent assassinations of presidents, prime ministers or kings. Since long ago, from Samson the Israelite to the present radical Islamic terrorist individuals and 19 Saudis who destroyed two towers in New York City and part of the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., there has been huge destruction of humans and structures. You can suppress terrorism at a tremendous cost both militarily and social dislocation by implementing all kinds of security measures that are very expensive, inconvenient and psychological affecting our fears and insecurity. But terrorism continues.

A terrorist is unbending: He/she will die for the cause. The most advanced and powerful military can only suppress, but not eliminate terrorists. Ah! If we could all follow the Ten Commandments, would it not be nice?

Gilbert Marrero

Temecula