What are you thinking, Mr. Patel?

In response to Mr. Rish Patel's letter on Monday, I have a friendly suggestion for my dear friend: "Open Your Eyes Rish." This is the 21st century, and emotional and sentimental affiliations are not as attractive as logic and reasoning. The reason is because most of the times we omit the truth just because we do not agree with it. India mobilized troops into Kashmir in 1948, right after India and Pakistan got independence from the British Empire in August of 1947.

Since then, the two countries have this issue even thought India herself accepted Kashmir as "a disputed territory" in the Simla Conference. United Nations ruled for a referendum in Kashmir to let its people decide what they want and this never happened. Indian troops have occupied Kashmir for almost 54 years now, and thousands of people have died because of fighting between Kashmiris (residents of Kashmir) and Indian solders. You do not think there are any human rights violations? You think Mr. Pervez Musharraf is to blame even though he has gone out of the way to help United States fight terrorism and also initiate talks with India about Kashmir? His "My Vision of Pakistan" speech in Washington, D.C, clearly states that he sees Pakistan as a moderate Islamic nation.

With respect to Omar Sheikh, a spokesman of the Foreign Ministry office of the Government of Pakistan issued a statement on CNN News Network saying that "we will hand over Omar Sheikh to the United States when formally requested and after initial investigations," and so I doubt the accuracy of your statement. Pakistan spends 60 percent of its revenues on loan paybacks and defense. We may never match up to India, who spends trillions on defense and has the biggest defense budget in Asia. We reserve the right to defend our country especially against those who have aggravated wars on us in the past and always instigate desire for destructive weapons. We also are home to millions of Afghan refugees - who do you think pays for their basic needs like clothing, food and a living place?

India and Pakistan both have severe issues like poverty, education and healthcare to deal with. I think we should concentrate on that and for achieving peace rather than just debating on what we think as individuals. I hope for a prosperous future for both countries and our world.

Adeel Elahi
management information systems senior
Pakistan Students Association president

Energy efficiency 'more powerful tool than military'

The United States is facing the possibility of an impending oil crisis. If Iraq continues to hold back oil for longer than its current pledge of one month, the present world surplus could be transformed into a shortage by a joint Iranian and Libyan embargo. So does it seem strange to anyone that we are so dependent on the oil production of three countries that our State Department labels as state sponsors of terrorism?

Our economic dependence is enormous. Paul Krugman of the New York Times estimates that "each $10-per-barrel increase in the price of oil is like a $70 billion tax increase." Beyond economics, many have come to realize, since Sept. 11, that oil revenues have helped to secure the oligarchic, family monarchies that rule many of the Middle Eastern countries now serving as breeding grounds for Islamicism and terrorism.

The administration has yet to present a responsible and coherent energy policy. Although Vice President Cheney eventually removed his foot from his mouth and conceded that conservation may be more than just a "sign of personal virtue," the administration has remained, shall we say, less than energized as a leader in promoting conservation.

In addition to conservation, Mr. Bush needs to get serious about fuel economy and fuel cell research. In April 2000, Bill Ford, chairman of Ford Motor Company, said, "Longer term, I believe fuel cells will finally end the 100-year reign of the internal combustion engine."

In January 2002, Mr. Bush acknowledged this reality when he shifted his support from auto fuel-economy research to fuel cell research. But fuel cells won't be a truly viable alternative for at least ten years, so Bush's abandonment of support for fuel economy research leaves a decade long hole during which we will continue to guzzle unprecedented levels of gas.

After Sept. 11, it is clear that energy policy is, in fact, a significant national security issue. But while this administration increases military spending by increments of billions of dollars, it hesitates to spend even a few hundred million dollars on the development of fuel efficiency technologies.

In Mr. Bush's "new kind of war," energy efficiency may be a more powerful tool than military might. Mr. Bush will be a true leader when he can stand behind his rhetoric, step above his ties to Big Oil, and cut off the real terrorist lifeline. Until then, he leaves us vulnerable. And he knows it.

Michael Horn
Arizona International College senior