Advertisement

The Moral Imperatives of Waging War on Iraq

September 12, 2002

Re "Threat by Iraq Grows, U.S. Says," Sept. 9: Do we really have to barge through the front door with our military tactics blueprinted Web-wide to dispose of Saddam Hussein? If the CIA can read a license plate in real time with surveillance satellites, pray tell why can't it insert a spook in range of Hussein and kill him? One man, survival unlikely, versus countless American boys dying and billions of dollars.

No United Nations approval, no congressional chitchat and leaks; just take the SOB out. Game over. Where's (author Robert Ludlum's) Jason Bourne when we need him?

Rob Ross

Burbank

*

I read through Jonathan Last's Sept. 8 Opinion piece, "Political Peril Aplenty if Congress Gets to Vote," wondering when he would get to the part where Congress and the Senate weigh such concepts as how a moral society behaves. What will be the long-term consequences of a war with Iraq, and what efforts are being made to represent the will of the American people?

Alas, those ideas are not part of the debate. The debate is not about our representatives searching their consciences for the decisions that will bring the greatest degree of health, safety, dignity, freedom, prosperity and hope to the greatest number of people. To the detriment of us all, it is about playing their cards right to get reelected. I fear many will suffer for their lack of vision and courage.

Peg Quinn

Santa Barbara

*

The Bush "go" versus our allies' "no go" opinion on attacking Iraq now is clearly a question of who is taking the greater risk. You can be sure that Hussein's initial target for a weapon of mass destruction will not be Canada, France, Germany or Russia. Since U.S. citizens will be the targets, and our intelligence community remains clueless, we must be prepared to "go it alone" if the president so chooses.

Martin J. Weisman

Westlake Village

*

The following dichotomy, often appearing on the pages of your newspaper, deserves comment. On the one hand, we have people calling for radical change in our way of life on the flimsiest evidence that man is responsible for a global warming portending catastrophe for our planet. On the other hand, most of these same people, in the face of powerful evidence of the inhumanity of Hussein toward his people and in the face of strong indications that he would wreak havoc on his neighbors and the rest of the world if he had the means to do so, call for inaction. God save us from the elitist intellectual agenda!

Tristan Krogius

Monarch Beach

*

The U.S. should not wage a war on Iraq to replace Hussein. First, there is no solid proof that Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction. Second, many countries around the world, including Israel and the U.S., have weapons of mass destruction. It is actually illegal and immoral for the U.S. to interfere in the affairs of other nations. The U.S. should not wage a war on every country it disagrees with. Nor is it up to the U.S. to change the leaderships in other countries.

Abdullah Mohammad Sindi

Placentia

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|