Saddam Hussein

Re “Limited Raids Make Sense,” editorial, Feb. 10: President Clinton’s objective in Iraq cannot produce a satisfactory result. Reducing Saddam Hussein’s capability to produce chemical weapons will not make them go away. Air strikes will not remove Saddam from power. Both of the objectives could have been accomplished by the coalition in the Gulf War. Instead, we chose to sanction and inspect through the U.N.

The U.S. and U.N. will not support the type of military action required to remove Saddam and his weapons. Why should Americans finance what will amount to another expensive slap on the wrist? Is it worth putting our soldiers, sailors and airmen in harm’s way? Couldn’t the best solution be no solution at all?

MATTHEW PROCACCINI

U.S. Navy, Point Mugu

* I don’t understand why our response to Saddam has to be an either/or proposition: either massive military action or more talk. If the U.N. inspection team is denied access to any building, why don’t we assume that that building contains something illegal? Therefore, we should send in our military to destroy that offending building. It wouldn’t take Saddam long to realize that every building must be open to inspection.

STAN SEAVEY

Oxnard

* There are disturbing holes in the debate over the announced intention of Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to bomb Iraq if Saddam continues to prevent full inspection of Iraq armaments. What is the estimate of killed and maimed men, women and children civilians? Instead of military attack, why doesn’t the U.N. stop all Iraq trade in oil and other commodities, and at the same time directly provide food, medicine and other necessities to the civilian victims?

Doesn’t such a bombing, without an explicit U.N. directive, constitute a violation of international law? Don’t such acts of war, without formal declaration of war by Congress, violate our Constitution?

NICHOLAS V. SEIDITA

Northridge

* President Clinton’s countless warnings to Iraq remind me of the old story about the girl who said to the guy, “I’ll give you 20 minutes to take your hand off my leg.”

No matter what we ultimately do to Saddam, we’re going to look bad so why not drop the big one on Baghdad and get it over with? I think Saddam’s 20 minutes are up and he needs to be shown what true weapons of mass destruction are all about.

Perhaps other renegade nations like Libya and Syria would become more malleable in the face of the same threat.

JACK BAILEY

Los Angeles

* The oil produced in the Middle East is exported, in the main, to Europe and Japan. While European forces were engaged in the action against Iraq, the majority of aircraft, tanks, artillery and troops were supplied by the U.S. This in spite of the fact that most of the oil consumed in the U.S. comes from the Western Hemisphere.

Why doesn’t the U.S. recall its ships, aircraft and ground troops and let the Europeans take charge of protecting the Middle Eastern oil-producing countries?

JIM CURRY

La Habra