Letters

In response to your Oct. 18 article "North Korea: What now?": The most frightening aspect of North Korea's breach of an antinuclear treaty is not that a Communist dictatorship is developing nuclear weapons, but that it admitted to it so boldly. At least Iraq and Iran still fear the United States enough to repeatedly deny having nuclear programs.

North Korea's brazen statements imply it doesn't fear US retribution. And why should it? US threats are usually empty. Our leaders back down from them in the face of international disapproval, shrinking to a safe position of appeasement.

E-mail this story Write a letter to the Editor Printer-friendly version del.icio.us [ What is this? ] digg [ What is this? ]

Get all the Monitor's headlines by e-mail. Subscribe for free.

We must reverse this policy. Now that one of the "axis" powers has defied the US openly, others will soon follow. Their next step may not be announcing nuclear weapons, but using them.
Jason Crawford
New York

Regarding "North Korea: What now?": In 1994, the Clinton administration struck a deal with North Korea, in which the Koreans were to halt work on dual-use nuclear technology, with civilian and military applications, in exchange for the US, Japan, and South Korea providing oil and support for the construction of nuclear reactors that did not produce waste capable of weaponization.

When George Bush took office, US intelligence indicated that North Korea was complying with this agreement. So it came as a shock to the international community when President Bush announced that Kim Jong Il could not be trusted. This announcement was a public insult to Kim Jong II and to South Korean president Kim Dae Jung, with whom Mr. Bush was meeting when the announcement was made.

The Bush administration put on hold the energy assistance the Clinton accord had promised. For Bush to claim that North Korea has violated the 1994 agreement is erroneous; the revelation that North Korea is working on a nuclear-weapons program should not be construed as a vindication of the efficacy of Bush's foreign policy. It is the result of a policy that draws an international line of demarcation, classifying those who agree with us as friends and those who disagree as enemies.

Dialogue always is most critical among those with whom you disagree most vehemently. You can talk to your friends any time.
Jack Gribble
Republic, Wash.

Lebanon can use even more water

Regarding your Oct. 21 article, "A Lebanese-Israeli water conflict threatens to boil over": You have left out one crucial detail. The signed agreements between Israel and Lebanon allow the Lebanese to pump a far greater amount from their rivers than they currently do. Israel and Lebanon both know this. America, which is attempting to mediate, knows it, too.

Failing to mention this fact, especially after going to pains to list Hizbullah as an "A-team" terrorist group and to repeat Israel's ludicrous claims that Hizbullah has thousands of rockets aimed at Israel, is totally unacceptable and misleading to your readers.
Isaac Boxx
Austin, Texas

Protection must come first

In response to your Oct. 17 article "Scarlet-letter dilemma in a suburban enclave": Are we supposed to feel sorry for Nancy, who's married to a sexual predator, because society has decided that he is dangerous and should be identified as such?

Quit wasting time on "poor Nancy." She has made her choice, and her friends and neighbors have made theirs. The right of the children to be protected against these monsters comes first.
Deb Ferrell-Lynn
Edmond, Okla.

The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.

Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to oped@csps.com.