Letters

(2 of 3)

The fundamental question is, what is wrong with a nation or society that wants war? America was very happy to arm and support Saddam and Iraq in the '80s, but now it has decided that Saddam is global enemy No. 1. America invaded Afghanistan, but now the Afghan people continue to live in a broken nation. Regimes like North Korea's pose a greater threat to world peace than Iraq's.
DAN RABINOVICH
Montreal

Instead of offering billions of dollars to Turkey for support, the U.S. would be much wiser to use the money to get Saddam and his cronies to leave Iraq and settle in a safe place.
SHAKIR LAKHANI
Karachi

The objective of U.S. foreign policy is to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam so that they will be forever indebted to the U.S., as Americans believe Europeans ought to be for their liberation from the Nazis. If the price of such freedom is being deprived of your cultural independence, is it true liberation or just another occupation?
MICHAEL MUNK KUCIREK
Odense, Denmark

Debating the Morality of War

In "No, This War Would Not Be Moral" [VIEWPOINT, March 3], Duke theologian Stanley Hauerwas asserted that by describing Saddam as evil, Bush "gives this war a religious justification." But religion has nothing to do with legitimizing this war. Saddam's immoral behavior provides the basis for action. He has used poison gas on the Kurds, supplied money to suicide bombers and built lavish homes for himself all while Iraqis starve. These actions are evil and alone provide more than enough moral justification for war. Going to war is never the first option, but when all others have been exhausted, it is necessary and moral in the face of monumental evil.
RYAN SCALISE
Alexandria, Va.

Hauerwas got it right. Too many people in America believe we are appointed by God to eliminate evil in the world. Do they honestly think that supplanting Saddam will end evil? Won't it be a call to arms for all militant or angry Muslims, whether or not they support Saddam today? It's too bad that Saddam wasn't finished off in 1991. But there is no justification for mandating his end just because he deserves it and we are frustrated by his presence. There must be better, more creative ways short of war. Otherwise, where does this process end?
EFREM LIEBER
Fountain Hills, Ariz.

My heart wants peace, but the fuzzy thinking of the antiwar side makes it impossible for my head to follow. Hauerwas' recommendation that we ask "Iraqi Christians what we can do to make their lives more bearable" does not address the central issue of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a ruthless dictator bent on territorial expansion. Hauerwas' assertion that the 9/11 attacks were not an act of war but acts of murder is similarly woolly. If the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were not an act of war, I don't know what is.
JANET LAWSON
Concord, Mass.

Columnist Andrew Sullivan's commentary "Yes, a War Would Be Moral" makes the best case possible for the war against Iraq by arguing that this situation is a continuation of a just war that was never resolved. However, Sullivan loses credibility by ignoring Bush's efforts to market the war as a response to Iraq's alleged involvement in the 9/11 massacres, when, in fact, such a connection is questionable. It is unrealistic to expect people to look beyond the lies the Administration is telling and concede that its policies are correct, regardless of its unwillingness to tell the whole truth.
MICHAEL DUDASH
Denver

Naturally Dangerous

The death of baseball pitcher Steven Bechler may have been linked to the herb ephedra [HEALTH, March 3]. It brings to the fore a problem that needs urgent regulatory attention. Alternative-medicine gurus and the burgeoning over-the-counter drug industry have fostered the notion that anything natural is safe. Well, the poisons strychnine, belladonna, ricin and botulin are all natural. Legislation is needed to prohibit advertising that implies "all natural ingredients" means "safe."
HERMAN BIEBER
Kenilworth, N.J.

Sleepwear for the Day

RE "The Pajama Game," about trendy teens wearing their pajamas on the street [YOUR TIME, March 3]: Kids may think they just created this fashion craze, but it's a new spin on an old tune. I remember the radical concept of wearing nightgowns as cocktail-party dresses, back in the '70s. The idea then was that clothing standards had shifted so much that no one would recognize the garment as a nightgown. Now kids seem to be saying that since their parents aren't there to help them get dressed, we have to accept them in their jammies. Wow, there are some people who say the baby boomers never gave up childhood. This group isn't moving out of preschool.
JAN SAVELLE
Saline, Mich.