Iraq

Letter writer Paul R. Schlitz Jr. can't seem to grasp the fact that an acknowledgment of Iraq's potential to harbor weapons of mass destruction doesn't necessarily indicate current agreement with the decision to invade, nor does it require someone to justify the invasion ("Explain again why we invaded Iraq?" Jan. 4). It's simply an acknowledgment of the situation. We do not invade every country that has the potential to produce WMD. I would also point out that failure to acknowledge threats is no less dangerous than inflating threats.

Contrary to Mary Meehan's assertion ("Ron Paul - the only choice for anti-war voters," Jan. 2), Ron Paul is not necessarily the best and certainly not the only option for anti-war voters. Indeed in the past three presidential elections, the Green Party USA has fielded candidates who have opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and have supported full repeal of the Patriot Act. The Greens' 2012 presidential candidate will no doubt maintain similar positions when he or she is nominated at the party's national convention here in Baltimore this summer.

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 31, 2011 Eleven-year-old Sy'Keirra English strides confidently to the front of the classroom and greets her teacher in his native language - Arabic. Atheed Azzet could not be more pleased. It has been three months, and the kids are grasping phrases that few of them had ever heard before he entered their lives. This tall, slim Iraqi clearly holds the allegiance of the sixth-graders at William C. March Middle School, located in a tough section of East Baltimore. When he beckons, they flock to the blackboard to draw Arabic's unfamiliar swirls and dots.

There is no dispute that Iraq used chemical weapons against its own people in the 1980s and in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein was most threatened with regime change. But has letter writer Michael DeCicco, who accused The Sun of hiding this fact, forgotten that some of those weapons were bought from the U.S. ("Iraq's chemical weapons stocks were well documented," Dec. 28)? None other than Donald Rumsfeld flew to Iraq to seal that deal in 1985. Your critic contends The Sun was "pants on fire" when it claimed Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

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.

The Sun editorial board is prone to making stupid and inane statements, but the blanket statement that "Iraq had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons nor any prospects for building them at the time of the invasion" ("Home for Christmas," Dec. 2) may be the stupidest and most easily refutable ever written. UN experts confirmed in 1986 that Iraq had contravened the Geneva Convention by using chemical weapons against Iran. On March 16, 1988, Iraq dropped bombs containing mustard gas, Sarin and Tabun on the Kurdish city of Halabja.

Now that President Barack Obama has withdrawn our troops from war-torn Iraq, he is putting all of our troops in Afghanistan in harm's way. Geraldine Segal, Randallstown

This week, the last U.S. combat troops left Iraq. After more than eight years of fighting an ill-conceived, inexcusably prolonged war made more devastating by official ineptitude and hubris, America's soldiers are coming home for Christmas. The nation that welcomes them back honors their sacrifice and the courage with which they served their country. Yet it may be years before we can fully assess the sacrifice our men and women in uniform made during America's longest and most unpopular war since Vietnam.