I am writing in response to the letter from Jill Jeffery of Framingham in the February issue of The 21st Century about the war in the Persian Gulf. Let me say this war could have been avoided, or at least delayed, or more action could have been taken to stop it. First, all the pro-war folks saying that sanctions weren't working, think again; Iraq is a country with 48 percent of its Gross National Product going to exports, and sanctions were having a profound effect on the lifestyle of Iraq. Secondly, you say the war wasn't about oil, it was about "naked aggression." Well, another point on the sanctions issue; we gave Iraq five months of sanctions. We've given South Africa forty years, but we don't hear about hundreds of thousands of troops being sent there, do we? Why? South Africa has nothing of value to offer us, but what does Kuwait have? Oil.

President George Bush was constantly saying he was going "the extra mile" for peace in the Middle East. Why did he reject all Iraqi-initiated talk of peace conferences after January 1st? Wasn't the U.N. deadline January 15th? All I saw was Bush waiting for the fifteenth like a little boy waiting for Christmas when he knows he'll get something he wants.

Another thing that bothers me is how people constantly refer to Saddam Hussein as a "madman who bombs his villages, rapes his women and kills his own people." Well, I don't see any purpose in our going and killing innocent civilians to stop him from killing his innocent civilians!

Can you say "Propaganda?" Mr. Peace Advocate can. Obviously Saddam, who the U.S. supported in the Iran-Iraq war for eight years, has to have had some redeeming quality which the U.S. saw in him.

I am constantly asked "Why are you so into peace?" and I find myself having to rationalize peace. Peace is something that needs no rationalization. All I can do in my argument is make war more irrational. Somebody who needs to ration-alize peace before s/he can support and believe in it has no concept of peace. n