LETTERS
War, Cont’d
Re your Feb. 17 commentary, you’re wrong about Iraq. Consider:
& #149; In 1940, neither Japan nor Germany was considered a “threat” to the U.S.
& #149; Saddam had chemical and biological weapons when he expelled the inspectors in 1998. To believe that these weapons are now gone is to believe that during the four-year inspection hiatus, Saddam secretly and voluntarily disarmed. Right.
& #149; The next terrorist attack against us, especially if it is chemical or biological, will likely be with Saddam’s assistance, but without his fingerprints. The source of the anthrax attacks in October, 2001 has not been determined, but Iraq is one of the very few producers of “weaponized” anthrax. The evidence of Saddam’s threat may be more death and devastation.
& #149; As author David Horowitz points out, if we stand down now, we’ll demonstrate to our enemies that we are weak and lack resolve. Recent history amply demonstrates that it is the perception of weakness, rather than the projection of strength, that emboldens terrorists and their sponsors.
The question is not whether we should start a war. We are already in one. Now we must either win it or surrender.
Howard J. Klein
Irvine
Your Feb. 17 commentary, “War? No” was one of the best ever written by the OCBJ.
Whatever one’s personal point of view, the comment was clear in intent, backed by body and substance (something paralyzing to most liberals), and had a nice crisp finish. Like a fine glass of wine!
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D.
Newport Beach
Discontinue sending me any more of your Orange County Business Journals. People like you don’t deserve an open forum to spread your irresponsible views.
Kenneth Lehner
Lehner & Martin
Santa Ana
I would like to explain why I think action is necessary, even if it means “war,” and why we are morally and economically obligated to take this action.
The Middle East is corrupt, backward, broken into tribal factions, primitive in the way it looks at its own people as well as the Western and European cultures and economies. The young are educated to hate us and disrespect other people and faiths. The professed goal of many in this region is to tear down what progress exists in this world and use it as a step to promote their backward and toxic vision of the world.
Two things stand out as to why we have to focus our attention on this region and promote change to the point of nation building.
First, the world is growing smaller at an exponential rate. We cannot afford the luxury of isolating ourselves and need to be fully engaged in a manner that promotes fair, reasonable and creative solutions to very complex problems.
A strategy lacking a credible threat of force is no strategy at all. If one is going to make a threat as part of a politically dynamic strategy then one needs to be prepared and committed to delivering that threat. Fear of retaliation, how other people may feel about us and the impact to our economy do not play here and are therefore useless in promoting positive change.
The second reason we need to take action is oil. Yes, oil. The world’s single most important economic resource sits right smack in the middle of the most disruptive region of the world. This is about the world economy and one very destabilized man or one very disruptive region controlling it.
Whatever the cost in lives now, the impact to our economy or relations with our allies, the price is nowhere near the price we pay tomorrow if it means going up against a country with the means, desire and resources to dramatically up the ante. Pay now or pay later.
Mike Ruiz
North Tustin
You are to be congratulated for your “War? No” editorial. Well thought out, well presented.
My OC friends and I agree this is no time to go to war, let alone to offer to give Turkey $26 billion. If we did this in industry, it would be called bribery!
Your quoting G.K. Chesterton hit the nail on the head. I am a long-time Republican but this is too much!
Philip Alspach
Irvine
Re your editorial regarding a possible Iraq war, kudos for speaking out on this issue. Your comments were well-reasoned and illustrated the futility of pursuing this action.
In the 1975 film “Three Days of the Condor,” Robert Redford played a CIA reader who discovers that a rogue CIA unit is planning to take over Middle East oil fields. I think the Bush Administration must have watched this film once too often.
There are now serious plans to “manage” Iraqi oil fields in case of an invasion. The rationale is that the oil revenue would be utilized to help Iraqi citizens in the development of their country. And it would also be a bonanza for the oil industry.
Go ahead,why not? Because of the imbeciles in the Bush Administration most of the world hates us anyway.
This threat of war against Iraq and the potential horrible human and financial costs must not be allowed to happen.
Mark E. Blunck
Oakland
Light Rail
Re your Feb. 24 Comment:
How dare you accuse the CenterLine project of being “19th century?” With all of the innovations, modernizations, enhancements, etc., this is at least late 19th century technology.
Perhaps the bright side of the politicos trampling of the citizens’ “anti-$enterLine” wishes is the possibility of double tax-free income from the higher-interest transportation bonds that will have to be issued to fund construction. With tax increases on the horizon, and stagnant CD rates, this will be a welcome bit of news.
RJ Mallory
Anaheim
