Instead of getting the U.S. out of the U.N... .

Would this not be a good time to move the United Nations to Paris? I know this suggestion will never float, but it is worth some consideration.

Relocation would put the U.N. much closer to areas where many problems now exist and will continue to exist in the future. Just think how much more important the French could feel on such a world stage.

Of course the U.N. ambassadors and their large staffs will have to learn to tolerate the surly waiters working those expensive Paris restaurants.

I'm not sure who owns the country club skyscraper that houses the U.N., but if it's owned by our federal government; sell it to Mr. Trump and get it back on the tax rolls. New York City could sure use the money.

While the charter of the U.N. is quite lengthy, I would like to focus on a few articles as reminders of what this worldwide coalition is all about.

• Chapter 2, Article 4: Membership in the U.N. is open to all peace-loving states that accept the obligations contained in the present charter.

• Chapter 5, Article 25: Members agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present charter.

• Chapter 15, Article 99: The secretary general may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace.

With the power of a 32-newspaper Knight-Ridder organization, you could do your readers a great public service with an in-depth report of what each of the 180 countries pays in dues, how many staff members each ambassador has, and who holds all the credit cards. Who pays the parking tickets? What other perks are available?

The hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. would save could be used to help fund a South Pacific Treaty Organization. After all, terrorist cells are active the world over.

Any NATO member who demonstrates an obstructionist mode should resign, pick up their tinker-toys, and stay out of the way.

WILLIAM E. BOSWELL
Biloxi

What is the real goal of this soon-to-be war?

First of all, it is a sad day when the word "peace" is automatically associated with the term "anti-American."

Second, the goals of this war have become somewhat hazy. We are told that it is about disarming Saddam, regime change, and liberation of the Iraqi people. So which is it? I guess it depends on who you are trying to win over. Bush says that all Saddam has to do to end this is disarm, but that will not liberate the Iraqi people will it?

Finally, Colin Powell went on television and showed us concrete evidence of the Iraqi threat. Buildings where weapons of mass destruction are stored, trucks that move them, and factories that make them. Why have we not destroyed these facilities in the name of protection? If Bush is so sure of these threats, then why has he put the lives of all Americans at risk? Just bomb the sites! Isn't destruction of Saddam's WMDs the ultimate goal anyhow?

PHILLIP PATTERSON
Gulfport

Many protesters go beyond mere opposition to war

Two related topics have been discussed for several weeks in the letters to the editor and Sound Off.

First is the subject of patriotism. Many pro-war advocates claim the protesters are unpatriotic. Conversely, the protesters claim they are merely exercising their right to dissent and are just protesting the war.

In my opinion, the problem the pro-war people have is that many of the protesters are also spewing a steady stream of anti-American, hate America and "blame America first" venom that has nothing to do with protesting a war. The pro-war faction considers this to be unpatriotic.

Second, almost every protester who is interviewed solemnly pronounces that he or she is just protesting the war but supports the troops.

I have one question for these persons. When - notice, I didn't say "if" - the war starts, will the protesters support our troops to be victorious?

TED L. BOYD
Biloxi

It's French talk... don't worry 'bout it

France? Not to worry.

"The world consists largely of weak men made and kept free by better men than themselves."

- John Stuart Mill, 1865

ARMOND 'SI' SIMMONS
Pell City, Ala.

Camp Wilkes fund-raiser is separate from BSA

I am writing to respond to the Feb. 21 article titled "Camp Wilkes, a tradition that endures." While the article is well-written, there are some inaccuracies that I feel should be made clear to the community.

First and foremost, Camp Wilkes is privately owned and has never been accredited, licensed or operated by the Boy Scouts of America or the Pine Burr Area Council.

Camp Wilkes Inc. operates under a separate board of directors and is not covered under BSA health and safety and annual camp inspection standards. For the public to believe that the camp operates as an official Boy Scout camp year-round or during the summer is inaccurate.

It is also important to understand that the fund-raising guidelines of the Boy Scouts of America strictly prohibit draw-downs and raffles as a approved method of fund raising. The activity planned for April 19 is being conducted under the auspices of Camp Wilkes Inc. The Pine Burr Area Council Boy Scouts of America will receive none of the benefit from this fund-raising event.

Pine Burr Area Council does own and operate 1,200-acre Camp Tiak in Wiggins. This camp is available on a year-round basis to registered Scouts throughout our 17-county territory.

We acknowledge and appreciate the contribution that Camp Wilkes makes to the community and specifically what Mr. Stanovich has done and continues to do as scoutmaster for Troop 212 in Biloxi. This troop has a proud history of service to hundreds of area youth and deserves our admiration and respect.

I want to make sure there is no confusion about Camp Wilkes and its relationship to Pine Burr Area Council, Boy Scouts of America and the fund-raising project being conducted by Camp Wilkes Inc.

W. ROBERT HOFMANN
Scout Executive/CEO
Pine Burr Area Council
Hattiesburg

The risks of war and the perils of peace

We live in trying times fraught with dangers and we are acutely aware of the risks of wars, but forgetting about the perils of peace. We now live under a mushrooming cloud of international terror, facing the danger of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of fanatic terrorists. Sooner or later biological, chemical or atomic weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists, causing destruction of apocalyptic proportions. Time is on the side of the terrorists.

During the Cold War period there existed a balance of terror. This balance is gone now and there is no deterrent. The price of inaction could be great and it is imperative to remember to balance the risks of war with the perils of peace.

ALEXANDER KIMEL
Pompano Beach, Fla.

It'll be good to hear 'Sheriff Peterson' again

Sometimes in life we are fooled. Sometimes we are even disappointed. We accept what is offered, then we charge into the future.

Oh, by the way, Ronnie Peterson is coming back to be our next sheriff in Hancock County.

A sheriff for all - ah, what a relief.

HOWARD POOLE
Kiln