Jimmy Carter calling on us not to attack even if weapons of mass destruction are found in violation of Security Council resolutions. - Hilarious.
Germany and France's self-serving stances to ensure France's oil contracts and Germany's illegal arms sales to Iraq.- Annoying.
Saddam ignoring the Security Council resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm their weapons of mass destruction. - Disturbing.
The weapons inspectors finding any illegal weapons. - Miracle.
Peace protesters thinking that Saddam was going to play nice if we did not attack, let the weapons inspectors continue their search, which they have been doing for more than 11 years, and give aid to help the starving Iraqi children. - Appalling. Just ask those who died when Neville Chamberlain did the same thing with Hitler in 1938!
The hippies who will still be chanting “no war,” and who will turn and blame our government when the next terrorist attack occurs after Iraq gets biological or chemical weapons to them, if he has not already.- Priceless. Except that my life and the lives of other Americans are at risk.
TIMOTHY C. BEAVERS
The United States of America has in its possession more nuclear and biological weapons than all of the rest of the world combined, yet we are demanding that other countries give up possession of theirs. This is tantamount to the idea that you put down your weapon, then I shoot you. When we have most of the offensive weapons in the world, we will truly be the only superpower in the world. We can't be so arrogant to think that we have the only answers to the problems in the world. The legacy of this country cannot be the annihilation of the innocent people just because they are led by a maniacal leader.
There are enough problems in this country to keep our legislative body busy. Too many children without enough food to eat, babies born with malformed bodies, families torn apart by drugs and other man-made causes, and the list goes on. Why then are we pursuing this course of world domination? Why are we so determined to choke our values upon the rest of the world? If we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. If they don't we then have every right to defend ourselves.
I love this country, but sometimes we just tend to be too involved in the affairs of others.
CALVIN K. BANKS, JR.
World events are now dominated by two extremist groups. Both claim to be on God's side. First, there is the Bush Administration led by George W., the self-anointed Middle East messiah. He rattles sabers and nuclear missiles. His disciple Dick Cheney has a secret energy policy that is no longer a secret. By invading Iraq for oil, the gospel of democracy will liberate Iraq in much the same way that native Americans have been liberated.
This group admits to warmongering to create “a positive issue environment” in order to gain votes and divert attention from domestic socio-economic and environmental problems. Peace on earth has now become “take that piece of earth,” even though there is no way a deficit budget can pay for it. Solution: Impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft.
On the other side is al-Qaeda's Islamic Jihad. This group's random terrorism is interrupted only by the obligatory daily prayers. Most of the operatives are Saudi, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, and Yemeni, all supposed allies of the United States. Their golden rule is the ends justify the means. Solution: The U.S. should give Palestinian Arabs the same social, trade, and economic support as Israel enjoys.
Meanwhile, the sane majority of the rest of the world also prays: God save us from the Christian and Islamic fundamentalists.
At one time, “supporting our troops” was simply buying a beer, attending a rally, or sending some cookies.
Since Vietnam, “supporting our troops” is not so simple. Today it's sending them into war only when absolutely necessary, providing them the training and equipment to carry out their missions as safely as possible, and then taking care of their needs when they return.
For me, President Bush has not made his case for the imminent need to send the troops into harm's way. Perhaps when the secrecy is lifted on the “evidence” of imminent threat, all Americans will be able to judge if Mr. Bush has “supported the troops.” There have been numerous equipment failures in this conflict.
Perhaps they are inevitable, but if they are because of cost savings by factoring in an “acceptable” failure rate, then I say someone did not “support our troops.”
Finally, after learning about the treatment of veterans with “Gulf War Syndrome,” “Agent Orange,” and being a disabled veteran who has personally experienced the downsizing of VA Medical care recently and was denied VA Benefits (GI Bill), I say that “supporting our troops” is just words.
I know many who are very vocal for and against this conflict, and all wrap themselves in the flag. I understand their feelings, but I hope everyone who claims to “support our troops” speaks out after this conflict if Mr. Bush and Congress fail or have failed to “support our troops.” To do anything less is to truly fail to “support our troops.”
“What did he know and when did he know it?” is all Democrats could ask as they pressured President Bush for answers following the aftermath of 9/11. Now that he knows the responsible players and where the money is coming from, they want to tie his hands.
Recent editorials blamed Mr. Bush's policies for hatred of us around the world. But the 1993 bombings of the World Trade Center and of the U.S.S. Cole were during the Clinton administration. Terrorists aren't about political policies, they are religious fanatics who want to force everyone to worship who and how they worship.
JAN M. MILLER
I am disappointed that General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have failed to produce a hybrid automobile. While they keep saying that one will be available in one or two years, I have been driving a Honda Insight since April, 2000. In that time I have put 87,310 miles on the car, and have experienced 52.4 MPG over the total mileage (not just on a few select “good” tanks). While getting this kind of mileage, the car is capable of cruising speeds well in excess of any posted speed limit, and has surprisingly good acceleration. And the car doesn't ever have to be plugged in, so there is no electricity cost.
It appears that the Big Three are waiting to be forced to produce hybrids, or are waiting for someone else to perfect the technology so that they can copy or license it. This is hardly the leadership position that I expect from American industry. Have they become so risk-averse that they can't do anything unless and until they can be guaranteed of large and immediate profits?
Congratulations to Honda and Toyota (which produces a hybrid) for their ground-breaking move, and shame on our producers that they can't, or won't, do something similar, even three years later.
Problem: What should be done with Saddam and his henchmen after we win our war in Iraq against his tyrannical regime?
Best Solution: Turn them over, unprotected, to their own people. History will then record for the world how we enabled their “liberated” people to justly reward that regime. Inevitably, the present Iraqi top military leaders would then meet their country's popular justice in the same way that past infamous tyrants such as the French and Russian nobles and Mussolini did.
JAMES MURRAY STEWART, JR.