Reading a news article hasn't made me cry in a long time. That one did.

These apologists for tyrants who think the average person wants to live without freedom make me sick. The Iraqi people have suffered enough. It's time to ignore the international wusses, use the first violation possible and turn loose the greatest humanitarian organization on Earth: The U.S. military.

Amen, brother.

Optimists. If Moslems want to live in freedom,

why don't they? There are, we are frequently

reminded, something like four dozen Moslem

nation-societies. Most do not have a Saddam

or anything like him, yet not one is describable

as free by even the most lenient parameters.



It is a comfortable western myth that freedom

is a general human trait. History says otherwise.

Her husband, the 'great historian' Arnold Toynbee, who was so anti-

semitic, that Pat Buchanan, cited

McGovern's support of him. in the

'72 campaign; wrote one of the

first apologias for the Arab nationalist

crusade in the 1959 Brittannica Yearbook; with few exceptions, she

inherited his intellectual anti-americanism; with less ability

Harry,



I appreciate your pessimism, but there are many current countries that only a few years ago were the worst kind of tyrannies.



Not every tinpot dictator is our problem, but Saddam is. We encouraged him to attack Iran. We let him develop WMD by ignoring his buildup even though we knew his track record dealing with his own people. Eliminating his regime will be a breath of fresh air in the area.



If we back down and ignore his potential for mischief, we'll pay for it in the end.

I'm all for eliminating Saddam and my problem

with Bush II has been his temporizing.



But will a free, self-governing people arise

from the ashes? Not likely.

I have my doubts, too. The main thing, though, is that the new Iraq must not pose a danger to the US. Whether such an Iraq is freedom-centric is a secondary matter.