Iraq Debate

Re “U.N., Iraq Reach an 11th-Hour Deal; U.S. Takes Cautious Line,” Feb. 23: The proposed agreement hacked out with Saddam Hussein calls for inspection of eight locations. If we accept that provision, we will be disgraced by our stupidity.

Limiting the inspection team to only that paltry number obviously skirts the provisions of the 1991 agreement. Inspectors will be allowed access only to those venues where incriminating supplies have been removed.

Unfortunately, shortsighted governments that gladly accept our financial assistance will be the most vociferous in damning the United States if military action results, even if it prevents thousands of fatal sicknesses in their own countries.

LOUIS NEUMARK

Northridge

*

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is bringing back an agreement from Iraq; our leaders say it must be one that we can live with. That phrase has even more meaning for a lot of Iraqi civilians.

WILFRED COUZIN

Laguna Niguel

*

Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction--anthrax, botulism and other biochemical agents--are relatively easy to deliver on target and difficult to trace. He has used chemical agents several times in the past and will again if he can. But should we prevent or delay their use?

Acting on long-term ethics and national self-interest, Israel in 1981 bombed the Osirak nuclear weapons facility in Iraq. Collateral damage included two civilian casualties. The world’s nations (including the U.S.) condemned Israel in the U.N. But without that bombing, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons in the Gulf War!

If little Israel could act on both principle and self-interest, why is the world’s only superpower rendered impotent by chattering Lilliputians? Our children will judge us harshly for our failure of will.

DEVON SHOWLEY

Cypress

*

How many billions of dollars in foreign aid are we sending to countries that have declined to side with us in punishing Saddam and Iraq for failing to comply with the terms of their capitulation in the Gulf War? How much longer are we going to continue sending it?

WILLIAM S. KOESTER

Anaheim

*

A preemptive military strike by a nation claiming to be peace-loving is an absolute, and a horrendous, contradiction in terms.

BILL HESSELL

Culver City

*

As a ‘60s antiwar protester, I was gratified to see that the same moral spirit that drove us then continues today at Ohio State University (Feb. 18). The same moral protest we raised against Nixon’s “interdiction” in Cambodia is valid today against Clinton’s “interdiction” in Iraq. Back then the administration scam was to “clean out the Viet Cong sanctuaries” and today it is to “stop Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction.” Only the spin changes.

It was also amusing to hear National Security Advisor Sandy Berger urge aggression against Iraq while saying, “There are some things worth fighting for, and those include fighting aggression.” That’s just what the protesters were doing, Mr. Berger.

BURT WILSON

Simi Valley