A Peace That Gave Dollars to Diplomats

Re “U.N. Council Backs Probe of ‘Oil-for-Food,’ ” April 22: Given the emerging United Nations oil-for-food scandal, I now understand the antiwar “no-blood-for-oil” mantra. Saddam Hussein’s dollars-to-diplomats program took money from Iraqis and gave it to well-placed U.N. officials and, most likely, political elites in many countries. In exchange, Hussein could count on a variety of unenforced resolutions passing the Security Council that would allow him to continue pillaging his country.

Hence a delicate balancing act for the world’s leftist community: no war, bigger oil supplies to power those hated SUVs and no blood spilled, except for the thousands of innocent, terrorized Iraqis now buried in mass graves. Glad I finally get it.

Ken Artingstall

Glendale

*

Re “A ‘With Us, Against Us’ Approach Is Unfair,” Commentary, April 21: Abraham Lowenthal reminded us of the irrelevance of an exclusively military approach for securing protection, under current international law, of genuinely shared “national interests.” He would probably agree that the most appropriate institution for achieving this goal remains the much-denigrated U.N. President Kennedy, Ambassador Adlai Stevenson and Secretary-General U Thant used that institution successfully during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Alas, in the current administration there is no one to match them to seize such an opportunity.

Kolluru Venkata Raman

Ontario

*

This president ordered the invasion of a sovereign nation without the consent of the U.N. Consequently, he sent hundreds of young American men and women to their deaths and is responsible for killing thousands of Iraqis. And he lied to the American people to do it. A few years ago a president lied in a court of law about having sex and was impeached by a Republican Congress for doing so. Yet now this Republican Congress sits silently. If you are a Republican and wonder why so many Democrats are angry, please give that some consideration.

Russ Woody

Studio City