Dear Editor:

I'd like to comment on the U.S. actions in the Persian Gulf. Why are the U.N. forces acting the way they are? Why can't we just back out, or make a partial agreement with Iraq?

There are some important reasons as to why we can't do these things. First of all, letting Saddam Hussein take over a country is considered morally wrong. He might have tried to take over the whole Gulf area if the U.N. hadn't intervened. Drastic events would obviously ensue if this occurred.

Another problem is oil. As most Americans know, gasoline prices have skyrocketed since the tension in the Gulf began. If Iraq continues to try to keep Kuwait under Iraqi control, Americans may lose many of their oil sources, which could lead to another energy crisis.

I agree with both of those reasons. However, on e of the best reasons I've heard may not have reached many people. This crisis is the first time the United Nations has really joined together in a major effort to preserve peace. The outcome of this situation is, in a way, a judge of how well the U.N. can cope under these kinds of crises. If the U.N. happens to come out on the bottom at the end of this affair with Iraq, it may be saying that the United Nations' alliance is not strong enough to hold up against a person like Saddam Hussein. This would easily give Hussein a chance to become another Hitler. All of the "Never Again" promises made after World War II may be broken.

I went on a tour of the U.N in New York last month, and found it quite interesting. Our tour guide tried to answer some of our questions on the Persian Gulf Crisis, and stressed that they hoped for a peaceful solution.

Since the United Nations was formed to preserve peace, I do not think that war is the answer to this problem. Peaceful sanctions and conferences are the best way to try and end the Persian Gulf crisis.