I emphasized Mr.Rouhani's main point, in trying to make sense of what he is trying to say. "Imposing our society's view"? You mean, like it is wrong to ask dictators to step down?Wrong to ask tyrants to stop torturing and murdering thousands of people. imprisoning children, hiring professional rapists and burying people alive? Ummmm...OK! I see it - and I hate your equating American values with those of Saddam. Enough said.
Editor -- Bob Pryor asks what would justify the war to liberal anti-war folks (Letters, "Liberal rationale," April 15). He cites the "liberation" of the Iraqi people, the still-not-found weapons of mass destruction, etc. I'm not a "liberal," but I'll take a shot at answering.If you thought that was stupid, read this, I am not even adding any editorial comments to it. It doesn't need them.
None of those points justify war. War would only be justified given a specific, credible and imminent threat of attack. Barring that, we're at best simply (and illegally) imposing our society's view on a weaker nation.
A. ROUHANI
San Jose
Editor -- In response to the article, "AWOL minesweeping dolphin found safe" (April 2), I would like to give another perspective. The temporary disappearance of Takoma, one of the dolphins used to hunt for mines in the Persian Gulf, proves that dolphins should not be relied upon to protect our troops. Although dolphins are highly intelligent, they are very social and can be easily distracted by other animals, or their wild cousins.Posted by shanti at April 17, 2003 12:58 PMRegardless, it is unethical for the U.S. Navy to enlist marine mammals in the war. Dolphins would never voluntarily give up their freedom to participate in something that is completely beyond their comprehension. Like us, they want to be with their families and friends.
Unlike us, however, they have no conflict with Iraq or any other country. Marine mammals have no borders. They don't drop bombs or shoot guns and should be left in peace in their world. Surely the Navy is advanced enough to carry out its mission without digging into the ocean depths for reinforcements.
MARK BERMAN
Assistant Director
International Marine Mammal Project
Earth Island Institute
San Francisco
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.realwomenonline.com/scgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2345
Is he also a member of PETA?
And yes, dolphins and other marine life had an interest in getting rid of the Hussein regime. The firing of the Kuwaiti oil fields and threatened destruction of Iraqi fields did a lot more damage than the Exxon Valdez
Posted by: John Anderson at April 19, 2003 12:06 AM
I completely agree with that, John. The dolphins might also have been mad at Saddam for draining the marshlands :)
Posted by: Shanti at April 19, 2003 8:40 AM
I think we might need to re-define “imminent threat.” By the old definition there was no imminent threat to the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001.
Posted by: Lynn S at April 20, 2003 7:51 PM
True, Lynn - If the FBI or someone else did capture some of the potential 9/11 hijackers, there would be people asking for their release saying that there was no imminent threat……
Posted by: Shanti at April 21, 2003 7:07 AM