Oct 3, 2002 
Letters to the Editor 

U.S. and many other nations have nuclear capability;  
Hussein not the only dictator

So Bush's war is Sam Kelner's too ("Make this war our
war," Sept. 30). It boggles Sam's mind that some of us
don't think invading Iraq is a good way to fight
terrorism. To Sam, this has something to do with Sept.
11, even though the CIA concluded Iraq had nothing to do
with Sept. 11.

Sam wants us to know about biological weapons and nuclear
weapons. Maybe he should know that from 1946 to 1970 the
United States had the world's largest biological warfare
program or that the United States is the only nation to
ever use nuclear weapons to kill civilians (about half a
million).

Iraq can produce biological and chemical agents, too -
any sizable group could do the same, enough to kill
thousands in a terrorist attack.  Iraq also probably
knows how to make nuclear weapons comparable to the ones
America used. That isn't hard to do if you have
weapons-grade material, plenty of which is in
poorly-guarded sites globally.

So how is invading Iraq, killing another hundred thousand
Iraqis and grabbing the Iraqi oilfields in a naked act of
transglobal aggression going to prevent future acts of
mega-terrorism by people who think we deserve it?

Saddam Hussein may be a ruthless dictator, but the U.S.  
supported him, especially when he invaded Iran, until he
got uppity and invaded Kuwait. Iraq has defied UN
Security Council resolutions, as have Israel, Turkey and
many other countries. Bush's proposal for war is an
assault on the UN and the entire structure of
international law. Bush wants to do exactly what Saddam
tried in 1990:  Invade another U.N. member state, install
a friendly regime and take control of that country's oil.
And Bush will do this even if Congress and the U.N.
object. So who's a ruthless dictator now?

Setareh Ghandehari Sophomore Journalism