Give the U.N.’s Peace Mandate a Chance

“U.N. -- Time for a Deadline” (editorial, Feb. 6) is wrong to say the United Nations risks irrelevance if it doesn’t set a date for military force. What’s clear is that this government and the nation’s media are drunk on power, swaggering across the world stage demanding all problems be resolved on our terms. Our allies don’t see it that way, and one wonders how many Americans would favor war if Fox, CNN and other media giants were not bombarding them with propaganda.

The issue is not Iraq but whether the world’s only superpower will use its strength wisely -- or become another of history’s bullies. The answer so far is not encouraging. But it is true that the U.N. is courting irrelevance in one respect, for if it caves in to American threats it will no longer be a peace organization. Just a rubber stamp for new military adventures.

Greg Urbach

Reseda

*

Your editorial suggests that the U.N. is now facing the same fate as the League of Nations, which “collapsed in the 1930s when it repeatedly failed to challenge nations’ aggression.” It seems to me that the U.N. is doing quite well in challenging the threatened aggression of the U.S. and Britain, pressing for a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi issue before committing to war and all the horrible things that war brings.

The primary purpose of the U.N. is “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime, has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” If the U.S. violates the United Nations Charter by attacking Iraq without Security Council approval, it does not make the U.N. “irrelevant,” it simply makes the U.S. a rogue state and international outlaw.

Randall Boese

San Diego

*

The U.N. will become just as irrelevant if it provides the fig leaf for a war desired by the major superpower as it will become if it resists that superpower. In evaluating Secretary of State Colin Powell’s pastiche of truth, lies and innuendo, one must bear in mind that the U.S. government, paraphrasing Powell, “will stop at nothing” to get the war it so ardently desires.

John P. Teschke

Long Beach

*

During my career as a naval intelligence officer, the need to protect sources and methods was reinforced daily. Conveying vital information while not revealing to uncleared personnel the nature of the source or the technology used in gathering that information was a skill.

To justify the upcoming takeover of Iraq, the Bush administration had Powell bring to the public compartmented intelligence information, with the predictable results. The next day brought news reports that the Iraqis were examining phone lines, pulling cable and exercising strict communications security. Nice job. I wonder if North Korea was watching TV that day.

John Maloney

Anaheim

*

Re “The Dire Downside of Peace,” Commentary, Feb. 6: I am so tired of warmongers saying that those of us who favor a diplomatic approach to Iraq are “proponents of inaction.” The men and women who are part of the U.N. inspections team would rightly be offended to hear their hard work called “inaction.” Let the inspections work; give the inspectors time to do a thorough job.

If we’re so afraid of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, why on Earth would we back him into a corner where he sees no choice but to use them?

Victoria Ballesteros

Downey

*

Osama bin Laden wants to overthrow all Muslim governments that are not fanatical enough to suit him, specifically including Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Led by our president, the U.S. is charging headlong into his trap. A war on Iraq will ignite a firestorm of hatred against us that will never die. We should insist on a congressional declaration of war before we attack.

David G. Stadelman

Hermosa Beach