Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

We have no right to condemn N. Korea's nuclear ambitions

The U.S. government wants to impose (more) sanctions on the North Korean people because of Kim Jong Il's pursuit of a nuclear bomb. That's funny. How is it that the American government is arrogant enough to think that they have the right to tell another country it can't pursue something we (and many of our allies) already have?

It's really not complicated. We have nuclear bombs; therefore, we don't have the right to tell another country it can't have one.

And how is it that the American media don't bring this simple contradiction to light? Is it because they believe the "nuke in the hands of an evil dictator of a communist regime is a threat to world peace" argument? Well, it's this country, not North Korea, that is attacking and occupying other nations. And it's this country, not North Korea, that has actually used a nuclear weapon on civilians.

And please, if North Korea (or Iran) were to use a nuclear weapon on the United States or its interests, they would be wiped off the map (probably literally). The truth is that these countries pursue nukes for defensive purposes - to fend off imperialist America and its allies.

Unless the United States decides to disarm its own nukes, we have no right to condemn another country for pursuing one.

Chris Ernesto, St. Petersburg

The danger of declaring an enemy

I said this years ago, after President Bush was first elected, but perhaps now it bears repeating:

The president of the United States should never announce to the world just who he believes his enemies are.

His statement calling Iran, Iraq and North Korea the "Axis of Evil" has now come back to haunt not only him, but all of us as Americans and the rest of the world as well; a perfect example of thought made manifest.

How could Bush not understand that when a country is put on an "enemies list," the leaders of those regions will do everything in their power to ensure that they will have adequate resources to protect their own national interests and safety?

It's one thing to "think" something and quite another to just blurt it out without thinking.

Gary Aldrich, St. Petersburg

The United States is the bigger threat

Re: N. Korea "threat to international peace," Oct. 10.

So our peace-loving president has declared North Korea a "threat to international peace"! Let's see - who was it that invaded Iraq? And who delayed and refused any action to stop our Middle East puppet, Israel, from bombing Lebanon back to the 19th century? And who has enough nuclear weapons to obliterate the planet Earth several times over? And who is the only nuclear power to have ever used a nuclear weapon?

So, from our "fearless leader," more fear, hypocrisy and lies! Sorry, but my own country is, tragically, far more a threat to international peace and security - as long as the "Bushies" are in power - than North Korea (or Iran) will ever be.

The Rev. John Kelley, Clearwater

U.S. played a part in creating crisis

Re: North Korean crisis, editorial, Oct. 10.

Your editorial states that North Korea "can't feed its people or keep the lights on without the charity of its neighbors." One of the reasons for this is because the United States failed to adhere to the 1994 "framework" agreement between the two countries, which allowed for North Korea to receive 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil per year and two light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for dismantling its nuclear program. North Koreans counted on this agreement, and many have suffered greatly because of America's reneging.

Part of the solution, you state, is for more severe sanctions. You realize that this would lead to more suffering and death of innocent North Koreans, right?

And finally, you label Kim Jong Il as a "nuclear renegade" presumably because of his pursuit of a nuclear bomb. So, how do you label leaders of countries that actually have nuclear weapons? And how do you label Harry Truman, the only person in the history of mankind to order the use of nuclear bombs on civilians?

Marianne Huber, St. Petersburg

Strong sanctions are needed

For quite some time now we have been hearing the threats coming from North Korea's Kim Jong Il, and now he has taken action. Every possible effort must be made to diplomatically mediate this headache that threatens world peace.

Clearly, it is in no nation's interest to see nuclear-weapons technology spread another inch. Strong sanctions from the United Nations are required. What we do not need now is a fictitious tale and half-hearted promises for any type of appeasement.

We all know how Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton handled it. Under Carter's watch Pyongyang got a nuclear reactor and oil - but it never froze its nuclear weapons program. When threats were made, Clinton made nice. This is why we are faced with this predicament today. President Bush needs to take a stronger posture.

Kevin B. Kamen, Palm Harbor

Stop blaming the Bush administration

Re: N. Korea "threat to international peace."

I see, once again, how media bias has affected even your reporting on the North Korean nuclear test. Susan Taylor Martin, in her front-page analysis, could not resist blaming the Bush administration for all the horrific fallout that could come from these tests. The United States and United Nations have been aware of this information for years.

Iran and North Korea have been working on their nuclear weapons for many years. This type of technology does not happen overnight. To blame this administration is media bias at its worst. With the world in turmoil, to use politics as a means of reporting a story of this stature is an injustice to your readers.

The world, as we know it, is in danger of such magnitude that is impossible to comprehend. We need to deal with these terrorist countries without letting politics revolve around solutions, if there are any. This danger has been building for many years, long before the Bush administration. The leaders of Iran and North Korea are unstable and, therefore, dangerous. We need to face this with wisdom and unity as one country. If we don't, there might not be a country left to defend.

Lois Scheff, St. Petersburg

The details do matter

Re: A malpractice injustice, letter, Oct. 9.

The letter writer's statement that "I do not know the details of the case but they really don't matter" says it all. Little "details," such as the fact that the doctors hired an unlicensed physician's assistant and allowed him to perform important physician's functions such as taking a history from the patient and performing a physical examination, should matter.

What also should matter to the letter writer, who is a physician, and all of us, is that a malpractice insurance company insisted on taking this type of case to trial when any reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would agree that the case had merit and should have been settled.

A $100-million punitive damages verdict within less than an hour of deliberation only happens when a jury is very, very angry. The evidence heard by the jury, which was aware of "the details," obviously upset them enough to want to punish those responsible for this tragedy.

Woody Isom, Tampa

[Last modified October 11, 2006, 23:49:14]