The arguments put forth in "Saddam not the threat he is made out to be" and "Ask Iraqi people how they feel about attack" (Feb. 18 letters) go something to the effect of "C'mon guys, Saddam's not all that bad" and "Americans are terrible people who kill Iraqi women and children for fun."

Both arguments, popular among the so-called "peace movement," are absolutely pathetic. The first author wrongly concludes that the United States is afraid of Iraq's military becoming a symmetrical regional threat. This is not true. The United States is more concerned with Hussein waging asymmetrical, proxy warfare on his neighbors (Israel) and the United States through surrogate terrorist cells. This is why we are so interested in eliminating this threat with our conventional military force while we are still able to do so. End of story.

The second author then petitions Americans to ask the Iraqi people how they feel about a U.S.-led war before it starts. Fine by me. But only if the Iraqis can talk with the now-free citizens of Kabul first. American bombs seemed to do some good there, didn't they?

These letters exemplify the modus operandi of the American leftists and European socialists: peace at any cost through appeasement and cowardice until tragedy strikes, then rely on vertebrate Americans to solve the problems they created, followed by criticizing the manner in which they protect(ed) you.

The peace movement is misinformed and misguided, but they shouldn't worry -- their right to protest will once again be protected by those they are protesting.