Jobs, Iraq, Bush and Vietnam

Re “Bush arrives in Vietnam for trade talks,” Nov. 17

There seems to be a growing consensus that we need to Vietnamize -- excuse me, “Iraqize” -- the Iraq war as our means of getting out. That this self-responsibility is always the solution ought to be food for thought about any justification for invasion.

Vietnam is better off simply by not being at war. Is Iraq better off without Saddam Hussein?

It looks like insurgents plus militia and a few foreign fighters are killing more Iraqis annually than Hussein ever did. Two wrongs never make a right.

JAMES J. WAGNER

Cypress

*

What do you know? It took quite a while, but President Bush finally went to Vietnam.

ANN WILLIAMSON

Glendale

*

Re “Vietnam’s loss, and ours,” editorial, Nov. 15

In response to Congress’ rejection of a free-trade agreement with Vietnam, it seems the protectionists are right. Maybe The Times hasn’t noticed that the U.S. is losing its manufacturing ability. What about decent-wage jobs being shipped overseas? How are U.S. citizens to become consumers of overseas products without stable employment here?

Look at our jobs now; if the goal is to turn every American into a consumer, how much money do these jobs pay? Most of these jobs do not provide healthcare coverage, and most are low-wage jobs.

Maybe the “protectionists” are right, and until other nations are prepared to trade on a level that is not so detrimental to us, we shouldn’t be concerned about cheap goods and labor. Where are citizens’ interests in these free-trade agreements?

H. ROBERT GRIFFIN

Northridge

*

Re “Vietnam’s love affair,” Opinion, Nov. 15

Andrew Lam says that Vietnam’s young population has a “new longing for the West. They want Levi’s jeans, cellular telephones, laptops” and the latest Hollywood DVDs.

Guess what? The Levi’s are made in Indonesia, the cellphones in China, the laptops in India, and the DVDs are pirated in Korea. Welcome to the new “West.”

JERRY BRADLEY

Santa Barbara