Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published September 5, 2002
Re: Concern over Iraq is suspicious, letter, Aug. 28.
When I read this and other recent letters on Iraq in your columns, I fear that we are already forgetting one of the fundamental lessons of Sept. 11. We were attacked on Sept. 11 by people we knew were going to attack us. How was it that within days we focused on al-Qaida as the attackers, and the Taliban in Afghanistan as their protectors? It was because our government had been accumulating the evidence of their hostile intentions for years -- but in the pre-Sept. 11 view of our moral and legal rights, we believed that we could take no action against them until there was an overt act against us.
After Sept. 11, the president argued that the rules of engagement had changed: We would pursue our terrorist enemies wherever they were, before they could kill and injure American citizens. When he said that, the Congress stood up and cheered, the American people applauded and the nations of the world acquiesced.
We know Saddam Hussein is going to attack us. We know that he has been accumulating chemical and biological weapons that he has used against his own people. We know that he is actively seeking nuclear weapons. We know that he has thrown out U.N. inspectors and made a mockery of the inspection program while they were in Iraq. We know that he has given active support to terrorist groups. As we were warned a few days ago, taking no action in these circumstances is more dangerous to American lives and interests than taking action.
Should the president make the case for action to the Congress and the American people? Yes -- and he has said he will do that. Should we revive national military service in this time of war? That's a legitimate subject for national debate -- but no reason to put American lives at risk while we debate it. Should we await permission from Egypt before we act to protect American lives and interests? From Bahrain? From Kofi Anan? I think the American people know the answer.
As we approach the anniversary of Sept. 11, let us be clear about the lessons it taught us about protecting America. Let us not make it just a time for sober reflection. Let us make it a time for determined action.
-- Barry Augenbraun, St. Petersburg
Re: Resorting to scare tactics, letter, Aug. 28.
When are people like the letter writer going to wake up? Try his logic using Osama bin Laden in place of Saddam Hussein: "Bin Laden is not completely stupid, so why would he start something against the strongest nation in the world, a war action he could never ever win?" Please try to explain this line of thinking to the thousands that were killed last Sept. 11 and the tens of thousands that were affected.
These people are not military planners. They have no concept of honor. They do not care how many innocent people are killed on either side. They do not care that the people who are harboring them are going to be ousted from power or killed. They are cowards who employ other people to do their suicide work and then run away from the consequences.
Be secure in the knowledge that the president and his administration (exactly like the situation with the Cuban Missile Crisis) know far more than we do about the capabilities of Hussein and his country. Be secure in the knowledge that there are very sophisticated intelligence gathering forces in place that must not be exposed or endangered by public displays of what the president and his administration know to be factual.
The letter writer believes these are scare tactics. Let's see what he believes when the next terrorist attack kills people he cares for.
-- Richard I. Kohls, Pinellas Park
Re: Lonesome hawk, editorial, Sept. 3.
The editorial stated that the president has no right to command an attack on Iraq without a mandate from Congress and the American people. The president is a constitutional commander in chief of the armed forces, not an absolute commander. If he orders a pre-emptive attack, the military would be in violation if it complied. The armed forces should "stand-down" and cease and desist from any action without legal mandate.
One thing I learned from four years of Air Force ROTC that being excused from civics class could not miss: The military has no right to act without the expressed consent of the civilian government. The War Powers Act is limited to immediate threats and needs a follow-up consensus to continue.
I also learned from my military experience about the tremendous cost of war. Will it become necessary to destroy Baghdad in order to save it?
Saddam Hussein is a petty tyrant, nothing more. He subverts the oil-for-food program as well as an equal amount of income from selling oil on the black market. He feeds the army, nourishes the elite and his power base with products from Jordan and military equipment from Syria.
We need to change the oil-for-food administration with a peacekeeping force from the United Nations and weapons inspectors. American citizens are in Iraq now: Vets for Peace has a water-purification project; Voices in the Wilderness is bringing medical supplies to hospitals; and a Christian Witness protection service is in place from the Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren to act as human shields in hospitals, schools, etc. These patriots are real.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. president and general said, "I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it."
-- James Willingham, St. Petersburg
Never in the history of the United States have we committed aggression upon another country. If President Bush continues down this path he will almost assuredly alienate us from all of the Arab and Muslim world (as a matter of interest, it was an Muslim country, Morocco, that was the first to recognize our new country in 1777) and from most of our traditional allies as well. France and Italy have already said as much as has Saudi Arabia, with whom we, along with a multinational coalition, fought this same war 11 years ago. There will be no coalition this time, except for maybe Qatar, and all that it can contribute are a few bases from which we will presumably operate.
Our president has, apparently unilaterally, decided that we must invade Iraq to ensure the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which by the way we are not even sure that Saddam Hussein possesses. Our government officials have openly admitted that, as in 1990, we have no adequate on-the-ground intelligence in Iraq to know what exactly is going on in that country.
I say let the United Nations enforce its resolution of inspections in Iraq. It has formed united and armed forces before to solidify its mandate of peacekeeping and can certainly get the armies needed together to do so again at this time. Hussein, if he is indeed an international threat, should be dealt with by the world community of nations and not at the risk of hundreds of thousands of American lives alone.
-- Robert Zontini, U.S. Army Special Forces (retired), Inverness
We are using a modern adaptation of Blitzkrieg because it just wouldn't be fair to surprise Saddam Hussein. This new approach to warfare is called "Klutzkrieg." We tell the world and Hussein months in advance that we are going to wipe him out, leaving Hussein no tactical option other than to distribute Iraqi biological and chemical weapons to terrorists. Probably by now there are Iraqi caches of anthrax and nerve gases hidden in cargo containers inside the United States. Hussein knows he'll lose, but he can and will make sure that we lose, too.
What happened to "Walk softly and carry a big stick?" If the Nazis had used "Klutzkrieg" they wouldn't have made it past Belgium.
-- Jim Rapp, Safety Harbor
Re: Powell: Try Iraq inspections first, Sept. 2.
Saddam Hussein is smugly confident that, with all the debate in Washington, he absolutely has all the time he needs to get his ABC's in order! A -- atomic, B -- biological, C -- chemical!
While we threaten him with pre-emptive strikes, he is even now threatening us with the unimaginable.
It is my sincere prayer that all-out warfare with Iraq can be avoided, but the longer we do nothing, the more likely it is that a terrorist event will occur.
Then the debate will switch to (the usual) "who did it and how can we prove they did it so we can retaliate?" Then (as usual) "nothing" will continue while politicians grab microphones and employ the same old rhetoric: "The perpetrators will be caught, they will be punished, and any nation that harbors them will be treated like the enemy they are!"
At the moment, Secretary of State Colin Powell sounds like the only rational guy in Washington, and he is being drowned out by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice.
It is said that, in a time of national crisis, the right person always appears,inspires and leads. We have been in crisis for a year . . . where is he/she, who is he/she?
God bless America . . . please!
-- Virgil E. Feltner, St. Petersburg
Re: War.
It is easy to be generous with another person's wealth.
Likewise, it is easy to wage war with another person's blood.
-- Daniel P. Quinn, St. Petersburg
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.
They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.