June 20, 2014
Your editorial on the situation in Iraq left many hard questions unanswered ( "Hard choices in Iraq," June 16). Here is a suggestion: I was once a volunteer fireman who fought forest fires. After each fire was extinguished we were told that new growth would sprout because the old trees, brush and leaves had been removed from the landscape. The clearing would give way to a fresh stand of trees. If the free world were pragmatic "forest rangers" and let the Mideast conflagration burn itself out, personal independence would increase because of the new environment.
June 21, 2014
The situation in Iraq is most analogous to that of Yugoslavia. Both countries were cobbled out of fallen empires after World War I, Iraq from the Ottoman Empire and Yugoslavia from the Austria-Hungarian Empire. Long standing ethnic, cultural and religious hatreds were ignored in creating these countries. Both countries were relatively stable for decades because of a strongman dictator - Marshal Josip Broz Tito in the case of Yugoslavia and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Both countries lapsed into chaos once those leaders were no longer in power.
December 28, 2011
In reference to The Sun's editorial regarding the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq ("Home for Christmas," Dec. 25) and speaking as a veteran of five years in WWII and later recalled for three more in Korea, I am in complete disagreement with President Barack Obama's political greedy, unwise and short-sighted decision in withdrawing our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 regardless of how they got there. Instead, I strongly believe that the U.S. should have maintained a strong standing military force in Iraq just as we did and still do in Japan, Germany and South Korea to assure that democracy remains in operation for the whole world to behold.
January 4, 2012
After two letters in attempt to justify himself and the invasion of Iraq ("Iraq's chemical weapons stocks were well documented," Dec. 28, and "Did Saddam have WMDs before the U.S. invasion in 2003?" Jan. 2) I still can't figure out what Michael DeCicco is trying to say in regard to the astonishingly stupid decision to go to invade Iraq in 2003. Clearly American citizens were in no danger from Saddam's stockpiles of chemical weapons even if they had ever been found or used on U.S. soldiers (which they weren't)
December 28, 2010
The Sun's most interesting editorial, "Fresh start in Iraq" (Dec. 27), stated, "It's vital that [Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki make good on his promise to lead a truly representative government that offers the hope of a better life for all its citizens. " But in my opinion, the U.S. is instead planning to remove that hope by withdrawing our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. Look how long it took for our original 13 colonies to become a unified democratic country — not until after battles with other countries including England, Spain, France and Mexico and eventually leading to our Civil War. Also in order to protect our interests and advances following some of our past major wars, we still have standing armies in Japan, Germany and South Korea to assure the safety operation of their democratic governments and to prevent invasion by their aggressive neighbors.
April 8, 2013
In response to Quinton D. Thompson's letter ("Obama's decision to leave Iraq led to catastrophe," April 5), I must remind your readers that the underlying catastrophe was perpetrated by then-President George W. Bush's illegal attack on Iraq. President Bush led this attack on the false pretenses that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to our nation. It was Mr. Bush's irresponsible decision to take this action that led to thousands of U.S. soldiers dead or wounded (not to mention the innumerable Iraqi civilian casualties)