Hope, prayer stronger than fear

Greetings of peace: I join with members of Pax Christi, an international peace group, the Catholic bishops of the United States, war veterans and millions of Americans reaffirming the position that a war against Iraq is immoral and unjust. The best process for the disarmament of Iraq remains with the United Nations - administered weapons inspection. It seems to me that the Bush administration is using fear mongering in promoting this war with Iraq.

In a speech on Feb. 9, Hans Blix stated: "Successful disarmament is possible without Baghdad's active cooperation, but it would be faster with Iraq's help." Two of our nation's foremost foreign policy experts argue that Saddam can be contained: "Iraq is weakened, its pursuit of nuclear weapons has been frustrated, and any regional ambitions have been thwarted. Saddam needs to remain in his box, but we don't need a war to keep him there."

It seems that Secretary Colin Powell, in his speech to the United Nations, produced only evidence that Saddam is dangerous; he did not produce facts. Fear is powerful, but hope and prayer are stronger. There is real hope we can disarm Iraq without anyone dying.

Let us use the hope and prayer approach instead of the fear demagoguery. May our God of peace direct our troubled and violent world.

Sister Marie C. Tarpy, Reading

Saddam's weapons can be contained

The Feb. 9 editorial ("Iraq/building pressure") states, "Iraq maintains thousands of chemical and biological weapons, weapons it has not hesitated to use in the past," when the truth is, Iraq did hesitate during the first Gulf War. It is certain that Saddam was in possession of these weapons but did not use them for fear of retaliation. This proves he is deferrable, and that a strategy of containment is viable.

The containment strategy worked for 50 years against the Soviets, even without inspectors. I can't imagine a war producing a better outcome, though I can imagine it ending civilization.

When I read and hear pundits and politicians fanning fears, I wonder about their motives for wanting war. Do they not realize the human suffering caused? Are they after Iraq's oil? It doesn't matter: America's voracious appetite for oil, and the administration's ties to the industry, are known worldwide. If America attacks, it will confirm millions of people's worst suspicions about America and make us more enemies than it eliminates.

Bob Reckers, Kenwood

Too many questions begging for answers

I think almost everyone agrees that Saddam is a bad guy. I think that almost everyone agrees that the United States could easily defeat Iraq in a war, if it comes to that. However, there are some major questions:

Why are we sending so many ground troops to the Middle East? In the initial stages, the war should be an air and sea war. The longer the ground troops wait, the more indecisive the president looks.

What are our postwar plans for Iraq?

Who will succeed Saddam and why should he be better?

Should we spend billions to rebuild Iraq when the economy here is in the doldrums?

Can you use weapons to convert a people to democracy?

I'm not convinced this is not revenge for 9-11. The president is going after Saddam because he can't find Osama bin Laden. However, the old adage still applies - living well is the best revenge.

Dan Shine, Anderson Township

Finally, Sadaam needs to be ousted

I read a lot of reasons for us not going to war, and for every reason I have a question that I wish I could ask them to answer.

For those who say, "If we attack Iraq, he will use his chemical weapons on our troops and thousands will lose their lives," here is my question: Are you saying that even though this madman has these weapons and may use them or give them to terrorists, we should slowly back up, saying, "Oh, we are sorry, Saddam, please forgive our intrusion?"

For those who ask, "Why don't we just strategically bomb his weapons of mass destruction?" Even if we can destroy all of his hidden weapons, what would keep him from redeveloping these after we are done?

For those who say, "We have not finished the war in Afghanistan," this is a statement.

We have effectively removed the Taliban from power and instituted a fair government. Al Qaida is on the run and hiding in other countries and receiving support in some such as Iraq. It is now time to expand our search for them, and take it to the countries that hide and support these terrorists. There is nothing easy in this war, but as the saying goes, nothing worth having is gotten easily.

Finally, my big beef about a lot of these anti-war crusaders saying, "War is never the answer" is this: What would you say to the millions of men and women who have given their lives in defense of this country and ensuring your freedoms?

Peter Schneider, Green Township

We overcame Soviets without having war

I have the nervous feeling that President Bush and his inner circle will be disappointed if the inspection team in Iraq does not uncover a "material breach." These guys really want a war. Forget the loss of life and property and the damage to our economy. They feel a need to make a statement about American power and assert a modern version of Manifest Destiny.

We survived a much greater threat from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And, we did it with patience and courageous diplomacy by determined leaders who knew that war was a terrible solution. Of course, Iraq is a much smaller nation and therefore a lesser threat for a bully.

We're living in a different time. An insignificant, impoverished, starving, Third World nation like North Korea can create a world crisis in a few weeks. American imperialism and war threats simply do not work. Bush needs to understand this new reality and learn to be a world leader rather than a world intimidator. I wonder if he is up to the job.

Stan Campbell, Anderson Township

Germans, French should check history

Germany and France would do well to learn from their own history. Germany was placed under restrictive military terms after World War I. They regularly foiled inspectors of manufacturing and storage sites by moving things and hiding them, and had a guise of civilian organizations. When inevitable leaks emerged, Britain and France were reluctant to press the point. Just imagine if they had chemical, biological, and nuclear capabilities in World War II.

Jim Swartsell, Forest Park