Letters to the Editors

Confronting Iraq has revealed our real friends

The Iraq crisis has indeed shown us who America's real friends are -- with the French, ignoring the graves at Normandy, leading the opposition to nipping the Iraq threat in the bud, just as they chose not to resist Adolf Hitler's march into the demilitarized Rhineland in 1936.

France built the Osirak nuclear reactor outside Baghdad, which Israel helped the world by destroying in 1981. And by 1989, an estimated half of French arms production went to Iraq. It was a French-built Iraqi Mirage fighter that fired a French-made Exocet missile that hit the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf on May 17, 1987, killing 37 American sailors.

Our real friends are indeed in the "new Europe," particularly those countries for whom the oppression and tyranny of the Soviet Union are still fresh memories, something forgotten by the children and grandchildren of those who appeased Hitler.

Eighteen European countries with a combined population of more than 300-million people -- old allies like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands and those recently freed from tyranny such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Slovenia and Croatia -- are with us against Iraq. We are opposed only by France, Germany, Greece, Belgium and Luxembourg, with a combined population of about 164-million people.

Add to this list Iraq's neighbors such as Kuwait, which has experienced firsthand Iraq's aggression, and Qatar, and we see how false the argument is of those who say America is alone and should wait to build a coalition. Let's roll!
-- Laurence M. Christman, South Pasadena

Francophile foolishness

Re: Our old friends, the French, are not as forgetful as we might like to think, by Molly Ivins, Feb. 22.

Molly Ivins tells us the French people really, really like us despite what many of us think, and reviews 60 years of history from a distinctly Francophile viewpoint.

As a World War II combat veteran, I found especially interesting her apparent attack to counter the widely held belief that France's quick surrender to Germany was less than heroic: "the courage of those who died for France in 1940," the "100,000 French soldiers (who) lost their lives trying to stop Hitler." Amen.

But what of the other 11-million Allied military personnel, including 7-million Russians, 453,000 Britons and 296,000 Americans who also died trying to stop Adolf Hitler -- and, incidentally, to liberate France?

Fast-forward to last year: If the French really like us, then why is it generally acknowledged that President Jacques Chirac's re-election was the result of his having pandered to anti-U.S. sentiment? And why do so many French leaders, from Charles de Gaulle to Chirac, speak of Americans with contempt? Is it, as Ivins suggests, "because the French are better educated than we are?" Baloney, Molly.
-- Joseph H. Francis, St. Petersburg

Many are wary of rush to war

The Bush administration and its apologists continue to say things that lead me to believe that they are not listening to what other people are saying about the war. President Bush says he welcomes a healthy debate, but does not appear to be really willing to listen to the other side. What kind of "debate" is that?

I have heard several people express opinions very similar to my own. In fact, it is basically the same viewpoint as expressed by France and many other European countries. We all agree that Saddam Hussein is a vicious tyrant, that, unchecked, he represents a danger to a large part of the world as well as to the citizens of his own country. We do not think, as the Bush administration keeps claiming we do, that Hussein is not a threat. We believe that force may be necessary at some point, if Iraq continues to resist. We do not believe that this can go on indefinitely. We see that the inspections are having an affect on the situation and we want them to continue while they have a chance of accomplishing the goal of disarmament. We do not want to rush into a war that may make the situation in the area even worse. Give the inspections a fair chance of succeeding. If they do not, then we can discuss what we must do. Even at this time, war should be a last resort.

What Bush does not admit is that regime change is no guarantee that the weapons of mass destruction will be found and destroyed. It does not guarantee that they will not fall into the hands of terrorists. If the situation there is chaotic when the regime topples, it may make those things even more likely.

Recall that our own Sen. Bob Graham released the CIA assessment last fall that the risk of terror attacks at home would increase if Iraq was attacked. Bush seems determined to destroy Hussein without regard to our own safety in the United States and the outcome in the Mideast. Why is that?
-- Ron Pehmoeller, Largo

Peaceful efforts must come first

The Security Council of the United Nations is obliged by the U.N. Charter to make every effort to solve international disputes peacefully, including submitting them to the World Court (Chapter VI, Article 36:3). After all peaceful efforts have failed, the Security Council may ask member states to contribute armed forces to a joint force (Chapter VII). But I see no mention of pre-emptive or unilateral strikes. Since Iraq has not invaded another country, and U.N. inspectors have not determined that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction, a pre-emptive or unilateral strike against Iraq would appear to violate the Charter of the United Nations.

I would certainly like to see Saddam Hussein tried for his crimes against humanity. I would also like to see any weapons of mass destruction he may possess destroyed, but I hope that can be done without the horror of war.

If Iraq is disarmed, I hope efforts will be made to peacefully disarm the rest of the world, including ourselves. Universal disarmament is listed as the ultimate aim of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which we signed. So universal disarmament is our stated goal.

The biggest cost of an Iraqi war, of course, would be in human lives, civilian as well as military. Another cost would be a setback in resources for improved education, health programs and poverty eradication, here and elsewhere.
-- Shirley M. Peterson, Sun City Center

Stand fast against evil regimes

Perilous weeks face our nation today. Enormous decisions face our president. Today, our great country and the world face grave danger. The danger lies with the outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These regimes could use their weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder.

Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals. They then set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their evil ambitions have brought cruelty and murder to countless innocent people. They have shown no mercy and have no limit. The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more then 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. Hussein has produced tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemicals could kill untold thousands. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. The dictator of Iraq is not disarming!

Our intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein is funding al-Qaida operatives in Europe. He also funds the families of the terrorist Hamas organization, whose evil intent is to call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of innocent Jewish people. Jewish people embrace peace; they hate war, but they will fight another war to remain free.

In America's time of war, Washington lawmakers need to get beyond politics, do their duty and support their commander in chief. President Bush should continue to take unprecedented measures to protect his people and defend our homeland. My gratitude goes out to our military personnel, who are the best trained in the world and who will rise to meet their daunting challenges. May God bless America!
-- Joan Atkins, Palm Harbor

Powell's presentation was misleading

The Feb. 20 editorial Take a deep breath refers to "Colin Powell's effective U.N. presentation."

Indeed it was "effective." And misleading. And based on shoddy "evidence," including photos that didn't mean what Powell said they meant, a British dossier compiled from plagiarized essays, and the testimony of discredited defectors and tortured captives. Journalists have since visited many of the sites described by Powell and found no sign of proscribed activities. U.N. inspectors on the scene told the journalists that those sites have been visited regularly since the resumption of inspections and they've seen no evidence to substantiate Powell's allegations. Chief inspector Hans Blix shot additional holes in Powell's case in his Feb. 14 report. Also, a nonplagiarized British intelligence report, leaked to the BBC just prior to Powell's speech, found no links between al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime -- a judgment that seems to be shared by honest intelligence pros the world over.

Of course, none of these facts contradicts the Times' judgment that Powell's presentation was and remains "effective." But that is more a comment on the overall performance of the U.S. news media, including Times editorial writers. With a few honorable exceptions, the major media prefer to trumpet rather than expose lies told by our government to gain public support for an unnecessary war.

Readers with Internet access interested in a careful analysis of the 44 points in Powell's presentation can turn to Dr. Glen Rangwala, the leading British expert on these matters and a longstanding critic of Saddam Hussein, at this Web page: http://middleeastreference.org.uk/powell030205.html
Dennis Hans, St. Petersburg

Against war, for our troops

Almost daily the news covers protests "for" and "against" the coming war in Iraq. How short the memory of the American public is! The Gulf War is more than 10 years old. We are hearing the rhetoric again that somehow being against war equates to being against our troops. As a veteran of 11 years, some during the Gulf War, I am cynical about sending anyone into harm's way. Does that mean I am somehow against our troops?

Only a veteran truly understands the honor and sacrifice that go into serving one's country. To be against a war perceived as possibly unnecessary does not disavow respect for our soldiers. Quite the opposite! I know firsthand about honor and duty. I question whether the politicians who send our military to die do.

Many questions are raised about the cost after a war of rebuilding Iraq. There has been no mention of the cost of taking care of the returning veterans. The care certainly was marginal for veterans returning from the Gulf War!
-- Jim Reed, Largo

Veterans face another battle

President Bush gave a speech recently at the Mayport Naval Station in Jacksonville. He praised our troops and promised them better pay, housing, etc. I find it funny that the president did not tell them that if they are wounded or maimed, the VA medical system is grossly underfunded and will not be able to treat them. Their battle in Iraq will be nothing compared to what the VA system will put them through. I know, I'm a Vietnam vet.
-- William Lone Eagle, St. Petersburg

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 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.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

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