Opinion: Nuclear question on Iraq has not been addressed

I've been following with intense interest the debate on your editorial pages, in columns and letters, about a war in Iraq. I wonder whether the president and his people are also paying attention. It often seems that they are hell-bent on war and nothing that Saddam Hussein does or does not do makes any difference.

I agree with most observers that Hussein and his inner circle are thugs, and that getting rid of them is a desirable goal. The question is, how to accomplish this goal? Of all the available means to this end -- economic boycott, diplomatic pressure, subversion, the natural workings of history and war -- the one that makes the least sense is war. Many letter writers and columnists have noted that a pre-emptive attack would be a dangerous break from our traditional policy of acting in self-defense. Are we on the verge of becoming the world's policeman? The likely high cost in innocent civilian lives (so-called "collateral damage") has also been brought up. How many tens of thousands of Iraqis will be killed before we even get to Hussein and his numerous doubles?

These are valid arguments against the war. Yet what bothers me about this entire debate is that no one is talking about the scenario that will probably unfold and the awful moral choice it will force upon us. Will we, or perhaps the Israelis, use nuclear weapons? In the chaos of war even a rumor of chemical weapons could trigger such an event. Bush can't pronounce "nuclear," but there is nothing in his makeup or history to suggest that he won't use them. The consequences of using nuclear weapons would be monumental: just for starters, it would mean the end of democracy as we've known it. And it could mean the end of a lot more than that. Americans who don't want nukes used in our name should speak up right now.
-- Bret Raushenbush, Palm Harbor

Iraq poses an inevitable threat

Is there an imminent threat from Iraq today? That is the question being asked by those who wish to avoid a war with Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, it is difficult to recognize an imminent threat in time to do anything about it.

Was war with Japan an imminent threat on Dec. 7, 1941? A majority of citizens said no. Those who lost their lives at Pearl Harbor give mute testimony that it was. We could not predict the imminent threat but war with Imperial Japan was inevitable to anyone who cared to look.

Were the events of Sept. 11, 2001 an imminent threat? It was inevitable that another terrorist attack, probably on the Twin Towers again, would be tried after the failure of the first car-bomb attempt. We are now trying to find a scapegoat for our national complacence that led to 9/11 and a similar effort was made after Pearl Harbor.

Is Iraq an imminent threat? Perhaps not. But it is inevitable, based on Hussein's character and history, that one day some of his mass destruction weapons will find their way into terrorists' hands. This will be at a moment of Hussein's choosing, to fit with his undoubted desire to take over the region's oil fields. This time the failure to act could cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives. Finding a scapegoat for that catastrophe will offer little solace.

History suggests that it is better to recognize the inevitable and act before it becomes an imminent threat. Is a confrontation with Hussein inevitable? That is the question to be asked, and the answer is crucial to the security of the United States.
-- W.R. Eames, Sun City Center

Seeing war up close

There are many citizens of the United States who are clamoring for war from a sanitized viewpoint. They appear to be viewing a war with Iraq from 30,000 feet in the air. They need to come down to earth and recognize that war is a messy business. The Iraqis are human beings just as we are, and they bleed the same way.

As a Korean War veteran, I view war from up close; I see the mangled bodies, the blood, the despair and the hatred generated by war. To the best of my ability, I attempt to critically analyze the possible political fallout and the moral aspects that are being disregarded by the war fever of a few armchair generals.

It appears that since 9/11, the public does not necessarily see a war with Iraq or any Arab country as immoral. They do not seem to make a distinction among the many Muslim countries and al-Qaida. Their sanitized viewpoint appears to give them a lot of comfort. I say, come down to earth and volunteer your loved ones for war.
-- Ralph Torres, New Port Richey

A difficult opposition

I recently participated in my first peace rally. I'm a 55-year-old Vietnam veteran so I've been around a bit. I've never been antiwar, and I'm not now. I believe in the philosophy of "Walk softly, but carry a big stick." I also believe in using that stick when necessary. We have the biggest stick in the world, and we are about to use that stick. But there is nothing soft about the way we've been walking.

I believe that war is a necessary evil. What is different this time is that my country, the United States, is about to enter into unilateral aggression. All my life I have been taught that we are the good guys who stand against things such as this. We went to war against the unilateral aggression of Germany and Japan when they invaded other countries. We went to war against the unilateral aggression of Hussein when he invaded Kuwait in 1991.

I consider myself a patriotic American. It's tough for me to come to grips with the idea of the United States being wrong. I was a bit uncomfortable at the peace rally because I don't quite fit in with the usual pacifists. Some of them don't seem to appreciate that the freedom we have has been paid for in blood by those who have been willing to fight for it. I appreciate it. And I appreciate our military. I'm proud of the way they serve. However, for the first time in my life, I am strongly opposed to the mission they are being sent to do.
-- John Czerepak, Winter Haven

Worth the time

"Hell no, we won't go!"

I demonstrated against the Vietnam War in 1969 and spent two years in prison. I'd do it again.
-- Shane Hunter, St. Petersburg

Bush must make a better effort

The entire seven-year Vietnam War cost the United States between $110-billion and $150-billion. It's estimated the cost of a war with Iraq in 2003 will be between $50-billion and $200-billion. These figures are adjusted so that inflation is not a factor.

The Vietnam War was initiated during a time when the United States economy was generally strong and there was not already an enormous federal deficit. If his plans come to fruition, George W. Bush will begin an invasion of Iraq when the economy is faltering and there are huge deficits in both the federal and state levels.

So, even if President Bush can avoid triggering World War III, there is a genuine risk that his war may start a new Great Depression. This could lead to the decline and fall of the United States as a great world power, which is surely not the result that Bush intends. But combined with the possible loss of tens of thousands of lives in Iraq, many of whom would undoubtedly be innocent civilians and children, the war could have many kinds of tragic consequences.

Naturally, I hope that these negative consequences don't occur, but I'm convinced that the danger is real. That's why I believe it's critical that we try to find a way to either contain or neutralize Saddam Hussein and his regime without resorting to an invasion of Iraq. Having listened to many comments of Bush administration officials, and numerous remarks made by the president himself, over the last year or so, I don't believe this effort has been made in any serious way. Now it's incumbent upon all citizens of good sense to demand that the Bush administration to do better, before it's too late.
-- Steven Randolph, Lakeland

France's motives becoming clear

Is European pacifism regarding the situation with Iraq a benevolence, or just self-serving greed?

If Iraq does destroy its oil infrastructure pre-emptively, or even if it becomes a "free" state, certain countries stand to lose an awful lot. And then there are the people for whom the war really is about oil.

The U.N. Web site reveals that France, Russia and China have 798, 862, and 227 contracts in various stages of approval with Iraq. U.S. firms have a grand total of one! The U.K. has eight, two of which have been nullified and six of which have been approved.

Russia ranks first among nations doing business with Iraq under the oil-for-food program. France, however, sold $1.5-billion worth of goods to Iraq last year, the most of any nation for the year.

Russia is owed several billion dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, and thus has a strong interest in Iraqi oil development, including a $3.5-billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate Iraqi oil fields, particularly the West Qurna field located west of Basra near the Rumaila field.

France's motives are becoming increasingly clear as they have a lot to lose, too. The DOE report states, "The largest of Iraq's oil fields slated for post-sanctions development is Majnoon, with reserves of 12- to 20-billion barrels of 280-350 API oil located 30 miles north of Basra on the Iranian border." French company TotalFinaElf reportedly has signed a deal with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon.

Let's not kid ourselves about the real reasons these countries keep stalling on coming down hard on Saddam Hussein. It gives new meaning to self-interest.
-- Kathleen Carlton, Tierra Verde

Insensitivity issue a reality

My son and nephew are both in the U.S. Navy. My son is even now in the Persian Gulf.

Lately I've been hearing some sentiment that reportage about body bags and the possible cremation of remains (if they are contaminated biologically or chemically) is insensitive to the families of our military.

I definitely don't agree. Body bags are exactly what we're facing. War is not pretty. Those who think discussion of these realities is "insensitive" should consider withdrawing their support for this war.

After all, those body bags will get used if we go to battle.
-- Sue Brown, Wesley Chapel

Punish those who abuse animals

Re: Pinellas woman charged with animal cruelty, Jan. 30.

As one who used to look forward to reading the paper while having my morning coffee, that is no longer possible. There is very little news to uplift the spirits. People have lost jobs, homes and life savings. The loss of the astronauts in Columbia is heartbreaking. Now we are on the brink of war. Last, but not least, there are so many cruel animal abuse reports.

The latest was about a woman in St. Petersburg who had two dead, starved dogs in her yard and a dead, starved cat on the driveway. They were left outside in the recent cold weather with no shelter, food or water. There were 24 malnourished animals in the trash-filled house and dead puppies in a cooler. Her excuse -- she did not have time to care for the animals. How could she watch animals slowly starving with bones protruding, getting weaker day by day and do nothing about their suffering? The SPCA will treat the animals and hopefully they will become healthy and find a loving home.

As far as the abuser, I hope she will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
-- V.M. Hutson, Hudson

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page