It is disingenuous to say, as your Jan. 28 editorial "Bush's domino theory" does, that setting Iraq up as a democratic model could "improve the chances for Israeli-Palestinian peace." How will invading Iraq solve the problem of Israel militarily occupying Palestinian land? How will driving Saddam Hussein from power force Israel to stop its colonization of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem? How will changing a government hundreds of miles away convince Israel to give up its dreams of stealing yet more land, water, and mineral resources to create an Arab-free "Greater Israel"?
Argue for an invasion of Iraq if you will. Argue for yet another foreign intervention in the Middle East if you must. But don't delude yourself. It won't do a thing to foster Israeli-Palestinian peace.
In order to sign Resolution 1441, every member of the UN Security Council had to know and agree that Iraq's previous compliance with past UN resolutions requiring disarmament had been a farce. Iraq was declared in material breach of previous resolutions by all 15 Council members. The Security Council members also know what real disarmament looks like.
When the South African government gave up nuclear weapons in the 1990s, it made sure its scientists cooperated fully with inspectors. Hans Blix's report shows that Iraq is doing the opposite.
If the Security Council's members do not act resolutely now, the US and Britain will be justified in writing them off. As an Australian, I would fully back my country joining any military "coalition of the willing."
Regarding the Jan. 22 opinion piece, "Venezuela's opposition ignores the Constitution": It is refreshing to read someone who knows and is willing to discuss the deep history of political and economic corruption that preceded Chávez's rise to power.