In response to Bill Pirkle’s column “Why war is hell” (May 30), I just have to disagree.

War on TV just really isn’t that bad. After all, if the violence gets too graphic or your position is about to be overrun — take a break. Go get a piece of cold leftover pizza. Save the popcorn until there’s a lull in the battle. Yes, Pirkle wants lots of violence in the movies so that we know war is hell. But of course, Pirkle is not against war — in fact, it seems he is not only not against any war, but also that the wars should go on indefinitely.

Let’s go to Mr. Pirkle’s conclusions and then work back through the myths and fantasies. He states “I don’t have the answers.” On that we can all agree. But Pirkle says he is “pretty good at describing the problem for your consideration.” No, no, no, a thousand times no. It is his very description of the problem; that is the problem.

Mr. Pirkle uses the euphemism “the war on terror,” but what does he mean? Is it a war to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, a war to eliminate al-Qaida, or some vague war against a billion and a half Muslims around the world? Or is he saying that the new mission of the war is to liberate Muslim women around the world?

Mr. Pirkle states that whether we should have gone in the first place is not the question. No, it does not matter to Mr. Pirkle how or why we went to war, just as long as we stay and die. He says “It’s easy to end a war.” No, Mr. Pirkle, it is not easy to end a war; it’s easy to start a war.

War is hell! Not the war on TV that you watch from the comfort of your home, but the war that brings young American men and women home in caskets.

Frank Gibbs, Kent