Immoral or Principled, War Seems Inevitable

When an unrivaled superpower can defeat small states without casualties or suffering physical damage to its homeland, the "whys for war" become unnecessary (editorial, Jan. 29). The problem now is not whether Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, whether the U.S. seeks U.N. approval or whether the Bush administration's hidden agenda is Iraqi oil or Israel's security. It is now a matter of salvaging the sole superpower's ego. Following repeated proclamations that Iraq is a danger, and having deployed more than 200,000 forces around Iraq at great cost, war is now inevitable.

Raju G.C. Thomas



In his State of the Union address, President Bush said we cannot trust in Saddam Hussein's restraint. Why not? He has demonstrated far more restraint than Bush has. In the nearly 12 long years since the end of the Gulf War, Hussein has not threatened to attack, nor positioned troops to attack, the U.S. Bush, on the other hand, in two short years in the White House, has been obsessed with Iraq, unrelenting in his warmongering and is well along in preparation for attack.

Who has shown more restraint? Who is more deserving of peace-loving peoples' trust?

Rodney Hoffman

Los Angeles


If Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, then the invasion will remove an obnoxious government that is a threat to the world in supporting terrorism. If weapons of mass destruction exist, the invasion is further justified in causing their elimination along with the odious regime and dictatorship.

Otis Page

Arroyo Grande


So Boy George wants to play with his GI Joes? At what cost? This madman wants to start an immoral, preemptive war with Iraq, and the consequences would be catastrophic: thousands of innocents killed on both sides, stepped-up anti-American sentiment throughout the world and increased terrorism against the U.S.

The Republicans want the war for political reasons, the media want the war to boost their ratings and few Democrats are offering any resistance. I pray that the people can stop this insane march to an unnecessary war.

Linda Davison



I voted for Bush. I trust Bush. He tackles every daunting issue facing this country thoroughly and completely. The problem is, after the previous eight years in the Oval Office, some Americans are not used to a president who actually works at the job of leading this nation.

I am so thankful that when Al Qaeda struck, my president was not groping interns in a closet but was taking his responsibilities seriously. Bush immediately set out to protect the people he serves, which is exactly what he continues to do every single day he is in office. Lead the charge, George!

Claudia Hiatt

Huntington Beach


Bush's war will open the gates of hell. No ... no ... no war!

Dorothy Allen



When America's military might is unleashed against Hussein, I want all to know that it is done "in my name" and with my blessing. I am proud that America stands against any regime that embraces tyranny, torture and brutality. We are the last, best bastion of man's hope for a better future, and we must not stand idly by while humanity is assaulted by the likes of such despicable despots as Hussein. Liberty, humanity and freedom demand we take action against Iraq. To do otherwise is to act unconscionably.

Ron Kryngel



George: It is spelled nuclear. It is pronounced nu-cle-ar.

Pat Mauer



Bush did this nation a tremendous disservice by telling the rest of the people on this planet that we and we alone are supremely qualified to determine which nations are in need of "liberation" and that we alone are able to accomplish this, with complete disregard for what the rest of the world thinks or believes.

My God, what arrogance! We are to be a beacon to the world, not an enforcer of our beliefs upon other nations and world regions. If we are what we think, the world will beat a path to our door. There would be no need to beat down theirs.

Rick Dunkerly

Pismo Beach

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World