World Peace Is Not Linked to War With Iraq

Re “Iraq’s a Loose Cannon, so U.S. Must Fire First,” Commentary, Sept. 23: Avigdor Haselkorn concluded that U.S. unilateralism and perceived unpredictability will be “better ... for U.S. security and for world peace.” It must be asked critically: better for whose peace? Better for the peace of taxpaying Americans who will be funding this $200-billion adventure? Better for the peace of the Iraqi people, who have suffered grievously during the last 10 years of American-led bombing and sanctions? Better for the peace of Iraq’s neighbors, who, for whatever reason, seem unanimously opposed to the impending invasion?

Haselkorn, like so many other hawks in this debate, suggests that the attainment of this far-off, abstract and lofty ideal of “world peace” requires, regrettably in this case, war. My suspicion is that the last thing Haselkorn and his ilk want is world peace. This is because for them, peace is war and war is peace.

Sam Page

Riverside

*

Somehow the idea of going to war with Iraq has become a fait accompli. The Bush administration has skillfully moved the debate from why to when. But it has still not answered the fundamental questions: Why Iraq, and why now? Until it does, we have no right attacking another country.

Jim Calio

Marina del Rey

*

I find it hypocritical that we’re poised to invade Iraq when Iraq’s invasion of another sovereign nation (Kuwait) was the very reason we fought against them in the Persian Gulf War. Regardless of whether or not Saddam Hussein is a despicable person (he is) and whether or not he has weapons of mass destruction (he might), we still don’t have the right to commit a preemptive attack on Iraq or any other country; no one does.

Emily Duffy

El Cerrito