Subscribe for 33¢ / day

Roscoe McPherren's comparison of Saddam Hussein's Iraq to Adolf Hitler's Germany is unjust and misleading, ("Situation in Iraq not unlike in Germany," YourViews, Feb. 1).

Hitler did love weapons of mass destruction of his time: long-range bombers, high-caliber artilleries, powerful battleships and biological killers. In contrast, Saddam's military was weak and backward. Hitler had an ambition to conquer the whole world, while Saddam simply wanted to regain what he considered was his country's lost territory - Kuwait.

George W. Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and no means of delivering them to America. That's why Bush invaded Iraq instead of North Korea, which had publicly acknowledged its possession of nuclear bombs and long-distance missiles capable of reaching the United States. Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 suicide attackers who wreaked havoc in New York City and Washington, D.C., are all Saudis. Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 assault on America. He was merely Bush's stepping stone to win re-election.

McPherren asserts that Bush's invasion of Iraq prevented Saddam's followers from pushing their country into civil war. On the contray, it was Saddam's central power that held Iraq together. Now, thanks to Bush,. Iraq is really in civil war. And he is spending $1 billion a week and spilling precious American blood to keep this fiasco going with no end in sight.

Eric Lin

Bloomington

0
0
0
0
0

Load comments