I read with interest your editorial (February 13) and I was struck with the frivolity of the writer of the editorial in taking a jab at Margaret Thatcher for her «warlike tone,» as he states. Dame Thatcher in her article, which I read in the International Herald Tribune, justifies the name of the «Iron Lady,» she used to be referred to when in power, compared to the pussy cats of the EU. The Europeans are avoiding the real issues and know only one thing: the need to lash out at the USA no matter what, for the sake of knocking the USA, which they envy. They live in an environment of contradictions, if it is to their interest. They ridicule the USA when it tries to forge coalitions for the common good, but they complain and again ridicule the USA when it goes it alone because its allies moan. They claim that US actions in Afghanistan or Serbia are part of US attempts to establish hegemony, but they criticize the US when it pulls out and leaves control to them. They don’t want the USA to use offensive force against potential or actual threats, they don’t want the USA to develop defensive measures, they don’t want the USA to use rhetorical arguments against potential threats, they don’t want the USA to use economic pressures in order to dry up the money sources of terrorism, and they object to preventive measures. But when they find themselves in danger, they run to find shelter under the wings of the Eagle. Your editorial writer intimates, among other things, that the US must take action to eliminate the causes of poverty and injustice. But the question is who fueled these causes in Africa and other regions of the globe. Is it or is it not a fact that a primary instigator is the colonial past of the same European countries which today snipe against the United States?