Dale column on the mark
To Shane Dale: I just wanted to say that your feeling that a U.S. military response was necessary in light of Sept. 11 is right on the mark, and I would venture to guess that a majority here at UA believe it to be true also. It just seems that those who disagree are very vocal - I keep reminding myself that this is what freedom of speech is all about.
I had read your article about the anti-war protesters and my thought was "Finally! Someone who makes some sense here," but didn't write at the time, assuming you had said it all. Now that I see you received some flack on that article, I wanted to write to affirm your reaffirmation. It may seem like anti-war protesters enjoy majority support here at the UA, but I think you would find that a majority share your views, we're just not running around (in pretty depleted numbers I might add) with sorry signs and tired slogans.
I really appreciated you articulating what I'd been thinking all along. Have a great holiday break.
Susan Miller
education graduate student
Bapat letter regurgitates nonsense
After reading Sheila Bapat's defense of the imperialist Islamic fundamentalism choking the Middle East (and now the world), I was dismayed when I saw she regurgitated the same tired nonsense about the CIA helping to put the Taliban into power.
What she and the other ignorant bystanders (including many in the media) are referring to is Operation Blowback, the CIA's plan to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It's true that the United States sent aid to help achieve these objectives. However, this aid was sent to Pakistan with the intention of it being distributed to the rebels in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the Pakistanis also had their own agenda, which was installing an Islamic fundamentalist regime, so they gave most of the aid to the Taliban.
Stop blaming the CIA for what was just another episode in Middle East politics. The Pakistanis would have done the same, even without U.S. aid.
Marcus Arnolds
international business junior
Anti-war protesters are hypocritical 'clowns'
I want to thank Laura Winsky for pointing out the one group on campus that is willing to fight left-wing radicals. Sure, we called Winsky a "commie" and a "pacifist." We have to call them the way that we see them.
The College Republicans shall keep writing into the Wildcat and make sure that the student body gets two perspectives, not just one that is slanted far left thanks to Winsky and Lee. Our chapter of College Republicans is one of the fastest-growing in the country. We understand that just scares the pants off you liberals! The Sept. 11 attacks have cast a spotlight on the left and exposed them for what they are. People on campus are sick of professors and those "progressive" (and I use that term lightly) alliance clowns blaming America for all the problems in the world. Hypocrisy at its best, they use freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution to condemn it and the government that upholds it.
The majority of students realize that while the majority of the campus faculty and a small portion of students make it out that their opinion is popular, our country's majority of support is clearly on President Bush's side.
It is nice to see that patriotism isn't being put aside. We are American and we shouldn't have to feel ashamed of it just because a group of touchy-feely hippies say so! I am damn proud to be American and I hope most, if not all, of you reading this are too. Hats off to you, Winsky! Hope brains are on that holiday list of yours!
Charles A. Peterson
history sophomore
Guns should be allowed on campus
Yet another student has been attacked at night near campus. It seems that the university area has a higher concentration of random attacks on women than the surrounding area. And I think I know why.
According to Arizona law, anyone over 18 may carry a holstered, unconcealed gun without a permit. Anyone over 21 who applies and passes a simple qualification exam may carry a concealed weapon. But no one, excepting law enforcement officers, of course, may bring a gun onto the UA campus. Which means that a law-abiding woman walking alone at night to the library will not be able to defend herself.
Isn't that nice for our local creeps and perverts to know?
There is absolutely no reason for the university campus to be a "defenseless victim," er, "gun-free" zone. I would like to be able to walk alone at night without always making sure I know where the nearest "blue light phone" is.
Even if you're standing next to a phone, the police take at least three to five minutes. Pulling out a .38 revolver takes two seconds. A lot can happen in those three minutes you're waiting.
Give students the right to arm themselves on campus. This soil is no different than the rest of the state. If I can defend myself everywhere else in Arizona, why can't I defend myself here?
Elizabeth Hazelwood
chemistry freshman
