Archbishop Renato Martino suggests that the United States send a “beefed-up inspection team” as a replacement for bombs, believing that Saddam Hussein can still be dealt with by diplomatic means (“Former Vatican-U.N. Ambassador Calls for Alternatives to War With Iraq,” Feb. 9–15).

How many times does the United States need to be lied to by Saddam, a terrorist of his own people and the world, before we will realize that words cannot stop him? What good will sending more inspectors do? Get him moving his warheads around at a faster pace? Motivate him to lie a little more than he already does?

Further, he claims that war against Iraq on self-defense grounds was unjustified. The U.N. inspectors have, in fact, found harmful substances such as mustard gas, satellite pictures of moving warheads, tapes proving that they are hiding things from inspectors, etc., clearly demonstrating that Saddam is concealing information to fool the United States again, ultimately endangering millions of lives.

We know that Saddam is rallying his people and Muslims around the world to hate the United States. We know that he will stop at nothing to destroy his enemies as well as his people. Yet defense isn't justified? How many lives need to be lost, and people need to go without freedom, before we will step in and help?

MONICA BERGER Dubuque, Iowa

Iappreciate your pointing out that most of the loudest anti-war voices are not only anti-American, but even more so, anti-Bush (“Anti-War, Not Anti-American,” editorial, Feb. 9–15). These are voices that oppose the president mostly out of ideological differences and won't support him no matter what, especially the Hollywood crowd and many Europeans.

However, I disagree that our country is moving toward war with “unmoored moral standards, defined by its own military and economic might.” Many people insist that this war is unjust, but when I read the catechism on just war, I think it's clear that it is just. We have a Christian man as president, and he is not taking his responsibilities lightly. We need to have some faith that he and his advisers know a lot more about Iraq's weapons programs and plans then we do, and they are moving to protect America. I also take issue with the idea that we need to have United Nations approval.

The United Nations is an organization that heavily promotes abortion, forced sterilization, homosexual agendas, redefining and undermining the family and an aggressive secular humanist philosophy. Nations opposing the United States are not doing so out of concern for peace, but purely for self-serving economic and political interests. The United Nations is more of a danger to a just world than the United States is (at least under this president).

Finally, I pity the Christians in Pakistan who think protesting with the Muslims will stave off attacks on them. Those who bomb Christian churches will not be appeased by protests against the United States. They hate all who are “infidels” and will continue to hate, no matter what the United States and its allies do.

YVETTE M. SCHUE Andover, Minnesota

You had two articles in your Feb. 16–22 issue on the same page addressing the same topic that were quite disappointing. The basis of the first one (“U.S. Religious Criticize Embassy's Use of Theologian to Defend War”) was utterly untrue. In the first paragraph, it stated that theologian Michael Novak was invited by the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican to “defend the idea of ‘preventive’ war to Vatican officials.”

In an article published at National Review Online, Novak said this about Iraq and the need for the just-war theory to account both for war by non-state actors such as Al Qaeda and preventive wars: “But all that future work to be done is not needed today in the case of war in Iraq. The moral grounds for this war are quite traditional.” Novak was not in Rome to defend “preventive war”; nor was he there as the ambassador's “appointed theologian” — he was the featured speaker at a just-war symposium and debate.

In the second article, “Citing Inconclusive Evidence, Cardinal [J. Francis] Stafford Denounces Push for War,” the cardinal said, “The U.S. administration had failed to provide conclusive evidence of imminent danger to U.S. national security” and claimed that this “was essential to morally justifying military action.” First of all, as the cardinal should know (Catechism, No. 2309), it is not he who decides what evidence is conclusive (nor is he privy to much of the evidence available to the government).

The obligation to decide lies solely with elected officials. Secondly, Cardinal Stafford misstates the requirements of just-war theory itself. Imminent danger to national security is one justification but not the only one; others include the restoration and maintenance of international order and relief of the oppression of the innocent.

Iraq is indisputably in violation of some 15 U.N. resolutions; it threatens the stability (such as it is) of the entire Middle East which, by extension, threatens the economies of much of the world. It is as vicious and repressive a regime as exists anywhere on earth and is a direct threat to the United States should it choose to give its poisons to terrorists.

This topic deserves better treatment than was given by these two articles.

JOHN M. CABANISS Raleigh, North Carolina