In response to Robert I. Rotberg's Oct. 21 Opinion piece "Why stop with Iraq?": The United States has no business getting involved unilaterally in the affairs of the nations Mr. Rotberg mentions. Our involvement with Iraq is due primarily to the threat Iraq poses to our nation in promoting and funding terrorist groups.
The nations Rotberg cites, with the exception of India, Pakistan, and North Korea, are not actively pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction and have not expressed hostility toward the US. I do not support the United Nations, but we shouldn't play world policeman. If the UN should decide to punish those nations for the atrocities against their own people, we might get involved, but not as a major player.
La Luz, N.M.
Regarding "Why stop with Iraq?": I fully agree that the same rationale used to justify war against Iraq could be used to justify war against a large number of nations.
Incidentally, most of these are US allies. It is unfortunate Mr. Rotberg selected a sample of countries widely viewed as unthreatening to US interests or unchallenging militarily, only to conclude by endorsing President Bush's claim that "Iraq is in a category of its own." After a year where the press repeats unquestionably the government's claims and misstatements as if they are factual, this is frightening. We are on a dangerous slope and do not seem to be changing gears soon. Where are this country's intellectuals?
Rochester Hills, Mich.
In response to your Oct. 18 article "Australia's Sept. 11": Before the bombing, many Australians saw the war on terror not as their own, but as another example of America's international bullying. Now, the silent majority has spoken in support of the United States, making clear that most Australians see this as a threat to their way of life.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, the Australian government has stood firm as one of America's closest allies. The support is not new.
For decades, Australia has been a critical support base for US armed forces, a favorite port of call for American soldiers and sailors, and the first taste of home for many after a long deployment. It is incredibly important that Australians see an outpouring of support from the American people, that they know they are not alone.
As with Sept. 11, the road to recovery is both arduous and costly. A US citizen myself, I call upon fellow Americans to donate what they can to assist the victims of this crime. Those of us who cannot afford a monetary gift should at least send a letter to their nearest Australian consulate. A message of support not only honors the victims of this crime, but those who died on Sept. 11 as well.
Regarding "An end to organic confusion" (Oct. 16): As the Department of Agriculture's new organic-food regulations begin to take effect, the public still runs the risk of buying into the myth that organic is better.
Some people mistakenly imagine that organic food is especially safe or nutritious, or even that it is entirely pesticide free. It's none of those things. And it makes no difference whether the organic food comes from a local farmer or a sizable company.
The US Department of Agriculture points out, correctly, that the new label "makes no claim that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food."
WashingtonCenter for Consumer Freedom
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 email@example.com.