Iraq war

U.S. would be seen as liberators in Iraq

Bill Sheets’ opinion piece (The Enterprise, Feb. 7) was so full of inaccuracies and half-truths it had to be countered. You stated “By most estimates … hundreds of thousands … would be killed…” Huh? By most accounts the actual war will be swift with most of Saddam’s forces surrendering without a struggle. The Iraqis are a long oppressed people who long for freedom from Saddam’s tyranny. It is clear you do not care about the people of Iraq.

By your reasoning, if the U.S. just lays very still and quiet with heads buried firmly in the sand, then the terrorists would not strike again. Excuse me, that’s exactly what the terrorists want us to do. Terrorism cannot sustain itself without State sponsor. Our past non-action led to 9/11. A teaspoon of anthrax shut down the U.S. Congress, remember? You admit Saddam has weapons (a violation), he has documented terrorists connections, he’s sworn to revenge against the U.S., and the U.S. has extremely porous borders. Do you still feel safe with Saddam in power?

Jay Inslee bowed to a constituency such as yourself, not because of the facts. Your doom and gloom scenarios did not prove true in the Gulf War, Afghanistan and (based on the 30-year record of the Iraq army) it will prove to be false in this case.

If you recall, America did not start this war. However, you were right about one point, America is known for finishing wars and we will again finish this one. The U.S. military will be celebrated as liberators by the Iraqi people and offer freedom a chance to flourish in the Middle East, which seems to be the scenario that frightens you the most.

MICHAEL NEWMAN

Edmonds

Iraq situation can be handled without war

The column by Bill Sheets, “Iraq war would be huge mistake” (The Enterprise, Feb. 7) is one of the best statements I have seen against this deplorable situation. It clearly demonstrates that there is no real basis for the fear which is being generated in the American people to push this country into the most disastrous, unjustifiable, and brutal action we could take. Rather, we should fear the terrible consequences of this war if we follow Bush in his insistence on waging it.

Even Colin Powell, who once seemed a reasonable man, has joined the fear mongers. His presentation to the UN Security Council last Wednesday was filled with very thin evidence of Iraq’s supposed arsenal of “weapons of mass destruction” and much that was intended to arouse our fear with efforts to link Saddam Hussein’s regime with al-Qaeda. There is little or no real evidence that such a link exists. Both the CIA and the FBI have tried for over a year to find such evidence without success. A recent New York Times article reported that some CIA and FBI personnel have complained that sketchy intelligence is being used for political purposes. This is no way to lead our country – into a war that will take many thousands of fives, including those of our own service men and women, and will destabilize an already dangerous Middle East.

History has shown that Saddam is neither psychotic nor reckless, as the Bush administration would have us believe, but rather acts quite logically to protect himself and his own best interests. In the 1990s, when he really did have a significant weapons capability, an aggressive weapons inspection resulted in the destruction of most of that capability. Let us push for and support tough and complete inspections now and win this one without war.

MARGERY KRIEGER

Edmonds

War not the only way to fight terrorism

Some would have us believe it is unpatriotic to speak up against a war with Iraq. But patriotism is not synonymous with blind loyalty. If you love your country, you have an obligation to step forward when serious mistakes are being made.

We are about to take unilateral action against Saddam Hussein not because he has attacked us, nor is threatening to attack us, nor has been shown to have the ability to attack us. We know Saddam is a despot and a bully. But are we not becoming the world bully?

Being the last superpower has fostered the belief that our might gives us the right to take “pre-emptive action” against Saddam, and then perhaps North Korea, and then, we may have to take action against other countries that have demonstrated an ability to do us harm.

This method is doomed to failure. We will not stop terrorism by attacking Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. We haven’t captured Osama bin Laden, we haven’t won over the Afghani leaders, and we have not even begun to re-build the country. What makes us think we will be any more successful in Iraq?

If we lived in another part of the world, how would we view America? I believe that most of us would not like what we see. We would see the richest nation in the world so caught up in its own wealth and excess that it has lost sight of its responsibilities to the rest of the world.

We will fight terrorism when we become an active force for peace in the world, starting with Israel and Palestine. We will fight terrorism when we realize that overindulgence, whether it’s food or fuel, is bad for all of us. We will fight terrorism when we admit that global warming is real, that we are the major contributors, and when we act to eradicate its causes.

I long for the day when I can once again say, “I am proud to be an American.”

War is not patriotic.

DICK VAN HOLLEBEKE

Edmonds