Edited by author 02-02-2003 02:52 PM
And Marty Cotler's:


I believe Win has cogently emphasized several points I made months ago. The removal of Saddam Hussein is a tactical step in an overall strategy in the war against terrorism, not an end in itself. It will lead to major changes throughout the Mid-East. It will lead to regime changes in a group of states currently supporting Islamic fanatics without the need for our troops being involved, and hopefully a better life for all involved. It has the possibility of advancing the cause of peace between Arabs and Israelis.

As Jimmy Carter said ' All wars are evil, but some wars are neccesary'. It's a question of whether this is a replay of 1898 ( Remember the Maine ), or 1938 ( Peace in our time ). I believe it is the latter. There is no appeasing the Islamic fundementalists who do not hate us because OSB built them roads and we didn't.

M Cotler


Does anyone have anything else to add?

Some of you already saw Win's reply in emails:

Feb 2, 2003

To the Editor:

The letter in last week’s News-Record excoriating the U.S. illustrates the near-paranoia that has gripped most of the anti-war movement in the last few months. The writer’s core thrust is to impugn the motives of our President and the nation in respect to Iraq. Supposedly the President has motives contrary to “…the best interests of the Iraqi [and] American people.”

On the contrary, it fairly appears that resort to force if necessary in order to assure that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction would be in the best overall interests of the U.S., the world, the Middle East, the UN and the Iraqi people. If the Gulf War of 1990-91 was short and decisive, with Iraqi military capabilities further degraded in the last decade and with ours vastly increased, it seems sound to conclude that any new resort to force will be swift and fully effective.

Again, unlike the situation a decade ago, there are suggestions that the Iraqi military is now prepared to dump Pres. Hussein if necessary in order to avoid the destruction and bloodshed that our attack would inevitably bring. (As well as to save their own necks from Nuremberg-type trials.) In sum, there is every likelihood that our resolute determination to turn to war if necessary will bring Hussein’s ouster without war, a regime change, freedom for the Iraqi people (and dancing in the streets of Baghdad), assurance that Iraq has permanently been deprived of weapons of mass destruction, an increased climate of peace in the Mideast and an immeasurable increase in respect for the U.S. As a fully collateral side benefit, a flow of reliable Iraqi crude will help to stabilize the world oil situation. The President spoke of his efforts being in the cause of peace. They are: as the recent joint letter of eight top European leaders attests.

And if Pres. Hussein is not sufficiently rational to go peacefully, the resulting war will be not our fault, but his. Again, it should be short and with limited civilian death and destruction.

The writer asks us to “defer to the United Nations” and “[l]et the inspections work”. We have done that. UN Resolution 1441 does not require a further reference to the Security Council. Iraq is in material breach of its terms. As well as the terms it agreed to as a condition for our cessation of hostilities in the Gulf War. (We are thus entitled at international law to recommence the Gulf War hostilities.) We do not have the burden of revealing all of the weapons of mass destruction held by Iraq. It, rather, has the obligation to show that the vast store of weapons reported as recently as 1998 by the prior UN inspectors has been destroyed. It has not done so, but is egregiously playing games with the present inspectors.

It is time to stop dithering and to act. It is greatly to be hoped that the Iraqi leadership will act rationally and agree to leave. But if not, in the interests of peace we must move decisively.

Very truly yours,

 

Winthrop Drake Thies

We have some new thoughts about the coming attack on Iraq. I wrote this about two weeks ago:
         January 18, 2003

The Editor
News-Record
463 Valley Street
Maplewood, NJ 07040

Dear News-Record,
 I am writing this letter on January 18, 2003 as anti-war demonstrations are taking place around the country. I regret that I did not go personally to Washington to express my strong desire to stop the attack on Iraq.
 This pending war is not the act of a nation whose motives are peace and the best interests of the Iraqi or the American people. The Iraqis may hate Saddam Hussein, but they do not wish to die in order for American puppets to rule their country. Nor do Americans want to send their children to die for an Administration that is obsessed with overthrowing one tyrant (why this one? Why not tyrants in North Korea or Saudi Arabia?).
 I believe that we are going into this war primarily because an occupation of Iraq will give the United States better control of Iraq's vast oil fields, thus supporting the interests of certain businesses, many closely linked to members of the Administration.
 The end result for our own country will be dead American young people, more hate of America world wide, economic ruin for average Americans, and repression of civil rights– unless a more general war results in even worse consequences.
 We should all be demanding with the demonstrators that the United States defer to the United Nations in this present crisis. Let the inspections work; let us participate in international affairs as members of a community rather than as a neighborhood tough guy.

       Sincerely,



       Meredith Sue Willis