With regard to Monday's editorial on the air strikes against Iraq: Saddam Hussein agreed in 1991 to a cease-fire agreement that ended Operation Desert Storm.

According to The New York Times on Feb. 17, "In the last six weeks, Iraqi forces have fired anti-aircraft artillery at American and British aircraft 51 times and, more significantly, launched more dangerous surface- to-air missiles on 14 occasions, according to the Pentagon."

The Collegian advocates additional diplomacy, but was not the cease fire that Hussein signed a diplomatic agreement? If diplomatic agreements can be broken without penalty, then what is the point of diplomacy?

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were correct in degrading Iraqi anti-aircraft capability before it succeeded in downing allied aircraft.

President Bush's responsibility as commander in chief is to the United States, not to nebulous international bodies. The objections of our "allies" are irrelevant, as it was not their aircraft and pilots that were threatened.

The responsibility for the bombing is entirely Iraq's for breaking the cease fire they signed in 1991.