The shortsightedness of our "peace movement" never ceases to amaze me. Today, as in 1991, only enormous pressure from the United States has produced a response from an ineffectual U.N. to the global threat that is Saddam Hussein. Iraq is a nation of about 170,000 square miles. Could we have turned more than 100 inspectors loose in an area that size and expected them to find all of the weapons that Saddam has had years to hide? Given Saddam's history, is there any doubt that upon the removal of U.S. forces from the region, the inspectors would be gone and Saddam would be back to his production of weapons of mass destruction? Saddam hates us. We seem to be the only deterrent to his ambitions in the Middle East. He has the means, capacity, and will to be the supplier of weapons of mass destruction to the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists who also hate us. When it comes down to a choice of sending our well-trained, superbly equipped military forces in pre-emptively or waiting a year or two for Saddam-supplied terrorists to penetrate our porous borders to strike our civilian population with WMD, I choose the former.
BILL BRAND
Punta Gorda, Fla.

I am opposed to the war, but i'm also opposed to many of the tactics used by those who share my view. Peacefully demonstrating and writing letters are appropriate expressions of the right to free speech. Spray painting "no war" on bridges and vacant buildings, blocking the traffic of those who have nothing to do with the war, and holding sit-ins at government offices are negative examples that only damage the cause of peace. When you use force or other criminal means to protest, you are on par with that which you protest about, and you destroy your credibility.
JOANNE H. JONES
Fayetteville, N.C.

When Gen. Tommy Franks says "a war unlike any other in history," I unequivocally agree. Our soldiers, upon writing "9/11" on missiles about to be fired at Iraq, automatically link Saddam Hussein's socialist regime with the religious fundamentalist Islam of Osama bin Laden. This is a far cry from conventional wars with a fighting unit that has unity of purpose. In the end, do we really know what we're fighting for?
RAGHEED MOGHRABI
Jersey City, N.J.

Although I believe most antiwar protesters mean well, at some point soon they should at least consider celebrating the fact that an oppressed people is in the process of liberation from a monstrous tyrant. How can one not feel a sense of happiness and satisfaction in seeing the faces of those experiencing the euphoria of being free for the first time in their lives? I suspect that many people born and raised enjoying the fruits of liberty have trouble understanding how intoxicating freedom can be for those getting their first taste of it.
TOM WETZEL
Willoughby, Ohio

May I just say that I have had enough of all of those who march in the streets. Our personal opinions notwithstanding, we are a country at war. Our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, and friends are fighting and dying. While the reason may be a source of great worldwide debate, the cause is and has always been freedom–freedom from tyranny and fear...for Americans and for our friends (and enemies) across the globe. Those of us who have been watching this conflict develop and who will follow it closely from the sidelines enjoy the right to express our opinions and share our feelings for all the world to hear. We enjoy the freedom to scream at the top of our voices in opposition to that about which our opponents will scream from the top of theirs. But we must not forget that the disturbing images we will see in coming days and weeks will be of the very thing that allows us to form and express an opinion about them; they will be of the very thing that keeps us free. As painful and unreasonable as it may appear, images of war become images of peace.
DAVID GIVOT
Long Beach, Calif.

My husband, Lt. Delmer F. Phelps, 8th Air Force World War II, was a POW for 20 months in Germany at Stalag Luft III and believed that answering your country's call was a given. He was stunned by the attitude of the young men who went to Canada during Vietnam. Yet I found in his desk after he died a chronology of the Vietnam War clipped from the newspaper with a notation at the top: Could the kids have been right? "War by New Rules" [Editorial, March 24] can be summed up in the last lines of "Soldiers' Stories" [March 24], quoting author Anthony Swofford: "If wars were fought only by men on the ground, the men facing one another in real battle, most wars would end quickly and sensibly. Men are smart and men are animals, in that they don't want to die so simply for so little."
LUELLA PHELPS
Palo Alto, Calif.

Have an opinion about a topic covered by U.S. News? Sound off