Violence in Iraq Raises Questions

Re “Violence Escalates Across Iraq,” Sept. 13: I have one question. If Iraqis were unhappy with Saddam Hussein, why didn’t we see this level of resistance when he was in power?

Frederick Cleveland

Hollywood

*

Re: “Military Intelligence Soldier Sentenced in Abu Ghraib Case,” Sept. 12: Whether you believe in the cause of the war or not, the talk of the abuse to the prisoners should never have left the military. For years, our POWs have dealt with extreme and harsh consequences for being captured. What our American troops have done in the scheme of things isn’t that bad. Yes, we should be setting the proper example of how to detain prisoners of war, but we shouldn’t be badly publicizing a war where our men and women are giving up their lives to defend our country. Some things are better left unsaid.

Michelle Aptaker

Beverly Hills

*

Re “Rumsfeld Mixes Up Hussein, Bin Laden in Speech,” Sept. 11: Is it any wonder that we went into Iraq? Our cranky old man of a Defense secretary can’t tell the difference between a Saudi militant who leads a global movement and an Iraqi mafioso who spends more time writing romance novels. Be afraid, my fellow Americans, be very afraid.

Chris Yang

Rancho Palos Verdes

*

Isn’t it a bitter irony that President Bush is depending on the reconstituted army of Saddam Hussein to save us from our folly in Iraq.

Carl Martz

Redlands

*

Bush was right when he said in his recent speech that if John Kerry were president, Hussein would still be running Iraq. More than 1,000 American servicemen and -women and untold thousands of Iraqis would still be alive. We would have more than $200 billion more in our treasury to spend on domestic items and on capturing Osama bin Laden and the real terrorists. Hussein and Iraq were never a threat to the U.S., but George W. Bush is.

Jim Fox

Hollywood