November 21, 1997
Return to this forum's introduction.
Questions answered in this forum:
Wouldn't it have been better to remove the American inspectors? What do Arab nations think of America's peace keeping ojectives now? Who would be impacted most by an unrestricted Saddam Hussein ? Why is U.S. foreign policy so inconsistent? How would the U.N. have reacted to a U.S. military strike? Viewer comments?
G. T. Wright of Houston, TX writes:
I have heard a number of high level thinkers worry about what would happen if we ousted Saddam...Why worry about this? Any person who replaced Saddam would be an improvement, and that person would have learned a lesson...be a member of the world community or suffer the same fate as Saddam (if we ever manage to get rid of that mad man).
George Gayuski of San Francisco, CA writes:I thought yesterday's interview with Raghida Dergham was excellent. I hope you will have her and the others on your program more often.
I think understanding the Arab perspective is very important to an eventual effective peace in the Middle East. Americans need more exposure to this to be able to effectively contribute to it.
An American who lived many years in the Arab Middle East
Preston Jones of Reno, NV writes:Watching your interviews on the Iraq crisis the 17th, I became convinced the Arabs are right. It is time to fish or cut bait. However, it is the Arabs that need to do so. If the United States has any hope of a positive outcome we must demand that the Arabs assume responsibility for their own security. The United States should support and help in organizing an Arab expeditionary force to secure and occupy Baghdad. Failing in this we must get our own forces out of harms way and bring them home!
Chuck Crouter of Missoula, MT writes:Don't you think Saddam Hussein is trying to get us off balance and worried about how to inspect his nasty secrets? Then we will forget he is trying to prove to his people we are the bully of the world. Wouldn't we better off if we attacked his character at least as hard as most politicians attack each other at election time?
Rev. George A. Lambert of Niceville, FL writes:No nation wins in a war, all we can do is to try to mitigate the damages, both long and short-term. It is obvious that an unstable nation such as Iraq should not have weapons of mass destruction, and they should be abolished, especially after the terms reached at the Geneva Convention. Gas, biological weapons and stockpiles of them should be an international priority for elimination for the protection of all peoples of all nations…
It is my hope that the U.N. coalition can once and for all put this issue to rest in Iraq, with the lessons so vividly clear and unmistakable that no nation will even consider their involvement with such weapons. I can see nothing in these weapons to be considered defensive, but offensive. Richard Madrid of Vancouver, WA writes:It is my opinion that we should have taken (Saddam) out in the Gulf War in the first place. We would not be having this problem now if we had. He is buying this time to move what weapons he has to more secure locations, and doing so by the cover of night; the U-2 flights are in the daylight hours.
The PBS NewsHour is Funded in part by: Additional Foundation and Corporate Sponsors
Copyright © 1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.