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.