In response to Jason C. Miller's column ("Peaceful solution might not be possible in violent country," SN 1/27), I agree with nearly every point he made. I don't think anyone would have a problem with overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime if it did not necessarily involve destroying the lives of many American soldiers and Iraqi citizens.

My concern is we do not act before we examine all the other avenues of resolution.

I don't consider myself conservative or liberal, and I think President Bush has done a good job so far given the cards he has been dealt. However, there are reasons for the present outcry against military action. First, our government seems impatient to begin taking action. I applauded Bush when he agreed to inspections, but now it appears we might not wait for inspections to end. This troubles me, as I am sure it does many others.

Second, it does not help when U.S. defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fires potshots at governments taking an anti-war stance instead of trying to create a meaningful dialogue.

I find it difficult to take a position at this time because there is so much I do not know. I am torn between acknowledgment that Miller is correct in what he says, and my general feeling that war should be the last possible answer.

You may be right that a peaceful solution is not possible in Iraq. As a result, an attack might be necessary. Before we send our soldiers to risk their lives and before we begin a war that will threaten the lives of many Iraqi civilians, I hope we exercise all of our other options.

Matt Payok
1999 graduate