Relocating Iraqi Veterans

* Regarding President Clinton resettling Iraqi soldiers who surrendered during the Gulf War, I have since found out that George Bush granted refugee status to these cowardly soldiers and Bill Clinton is enforcing this agreement. Why?

California does not have jobs or social services for its own citizens, so leave these Iraqis in their own country, or better yet, send them to Kennebunkport with George.

Since Clinton feels it is his duty to follow through on Bush’s promises, it would behoove him to concentrate on a policy that is beneficial to the taxpayers. We are sick and tired of “trickle-down” bleeding hearts, and it’s time we gave preferential treatment to our veterans and not our enemies!

FRANCES LATHAM

Gardena

* While driving the streets of Los Angeles I have seen hundreds of men and women holding cardboard signs that read: “Homeless veteran; Will work for food.”

I recently drove across the country to Washington and in every city I saw the same people holding the same signs. Now I read of a program that will pay up to $7,000 to relocate 4,000 Iraqi veterans of the Gulf War. These vets and their family members will have access to federal social service programs, housing, job opportunities and retraining.

I think this relocation program should be implemented as is, except for one change. Give U.S. vets another chance at a better life.

MICHAEL AXELROD

Redondo Beach

* Please let my voice be heard along with my sorrow and pain over this action. I do not believe that we should close our doors to others--on the contrary. What I do believe is that we are all equal and should all be afforded the same opportunities. It seems, from my perspective, these soldiers are being treated far better than our own people (whether in or out of the armed services).

How can we spend money (we don’t have) on the Iraqi soldiers when we can’t afford to spend it on Americans?

MARTIN ZURLA

Marina del Rey

* Your Aug. 30 editorial applauding the Iraqi resettlement in the United States is incredibly naive.

First of all, why should the U.S. be burdened with more than a thousand of these refugees and then compound this by giving them up to $7,000 each? There are dozens of Arab countries, including our so-called friends like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, whom we defended at great expense to our nation. Why can’t these or other Arab countries absorb their brothers? Many Arab countries opposed Saddam Hussein. Were these countries asked to absorb some?

To allow these Iraqi soldiers who fought against us to have a red-carpet welcome here is so absurd that I checked to see if it was April Fools’ Day.

You indicate that 75 bipartisan members of Congress opposed this plan. I’d like to know why all 535 didn’t. In a time where illegal immigration is creating havoc with our economy (especially in California) we now open our doors and pockets to potential terrorists that have fought against us. What a great precedent--armies that go to war against us have a no-lose situation; they either defeat us or if it looks like the tide is against them, they turn themselves in for the cash and welcome mat and leapfrog over those trying to gain entry legally.

VICTOR I. REICHMAN

Sylmar