Iraq war turns U.S. into world's Îbully'

I am very much against the war in Iraq. I do not agree with President Bush, his administration or his current actions. Pre-emptive strike makes the United States seem like a bully on the playground of the world, not a protector. Before anyone calls me anti-American, remember, I too have a right to my opinion and the right to publicly express that opinion.

In regard to her Tuesday letter, Kelly Haverland, you, your friend and her boyfriend's family have my deepest sympathies, as do the families and friends of all the military personnel in this conflict (and the other ongoing conflicts). I too have friends in the military and know people fighting in Iraq. But just because people are anti-war does not mean they do not support the troops. I believe they support them even more because those against the war are trying to spare lives of both Americans and other coalition forces, and Iraqis. There are plenty of people who enlisted expecting never to see combat ÷ the idea of having your college paid for in exchange for a few years of service is a very tempting offer.

No, this will not be this generation's Vietnam, but it is the first real war we have seen and probably not the last. People my age and younger are fighting and dying for a cause I do not believe most of them believe in. Even if Saddam Hussein does have biological and chemical weapons (a program that the United States gave him) he most likely does not have the capability to use them. A fact you probably overlooked is that last year our own CIA said Hussein was not a threat to the United States unless provoked, and provoked him we have.

And as much as you believe the U.S. Congress should follow the example of the British Parliament in voting to use military force, remember that the British people for the most part do not support this war, and that they are not a representative democracy as the United States is. And that the majority of the American people do not support this war, but we will see it out.

The world is against this war, not against the United States.

This war should never have been started, and I will continue to be against it. I support the troops and pray for their safety. But Ms. Haverland, let me make a suggestion to further your pro-war stance ÷ go down to one of the local recruiters and enlist. That is the best way you can show your support for the war, as I am showing my opposition by protesting.

Emilie Steinhoff
UA alumna

CD boycott exercises freedom of speech

Nick Smith wrote in his Tuesday letter, "Why are the Dixie Chicks being punished for exercising their right to free speech? Shouldn't any American citizen be allowed to voice her or his own opinion without repercussions?"

The right to free speech means the government can't censor you. That doesn't mean you have the right to voice your own opinion without repercussions ÷ where the heck does that idea come from? Don't people take classes in government in high school anymore?

The Dixie Chicks have the right to express their opinions, and they have. Consumers have a right to boycott products they don't like ÷ in this case, the Dixie Chicks. That's their right too. That's the American way.

Gordon Zaft
UA alumnus, Class of 1985, 2001

Students should seek alternative war news

In Wednesday's Wildcat, all columnists discussed the coverage of the war in U.S. media but managed to miss the main point: Up until now, the coverage of the war by pretty much all of the main U.S. networks has been so shallow and dependent on official sources that it eerily reminds me of television in totalitarian countries such as the former Soviet Union.

I've seen talk shows in which seven guests out of seven were army generals, "interviews" in which war is talked about as if it was a football game, and hour-long ramblings by "embedded soldiers" (a hundred miles from the front, of course) in which not a single investigative question was asked.

Virtually everyone I know on this campus who is from outside the United States is stunned, first and foremost, at the appalling coverage of something that should be of vital importance to everyone. To think that this is what investigative journalism should be like, you really have to never set foot outside of the United States.

Do not take my word for it: Do yourself a favor and look up the homepage of the British Broadcasting Corp. on the Internet. Read a few quality British newspapers (the Guardian or the Independent), or the English Middle Eastern press. The Israeli newspaper Ha'Aretz, has some excellent Middle Eastern coverage, and has an English edition. Al Jazeera also started putting up news in English on the Web, and it's the only television station in the world with a correspondent in Basra. For those who read a foreign language, check out the European press.

A good part of the reason the current war is perceived so differently in the United States compared to the rest of the world is due to the differences in media coverage. I would advise everyone to get as many sources as they can, be critical of all of them, and think for yourselves.

Literally, lives may depend on it.

Giorgio Torrieri
physics graduate student

Kudos to column for defense of patriots

Thanks to Caitlin Hall for explaining in her Thursday column that patriotism should not mean blindly following our leaders and supporting our troops even when we feel that this war is unjust. I am tired of self-proclaimed patriots suddenly proclaiming that to be "free" and to be true Americans we must simply shut up and support the troops. Why is there suddenly so much outrage when the "A" on "A" mountain is painted black? When it is painted green for St. Patrick's Day or red, white and blue in order to support the great nation of America? I don't recall so much concern about "vandalism." I loved the "A" painted black signifying mourning for victims, which is more appropriate in a time of war than any "patriotic" excitement. I love all the protesters out expressing their angst and sorrow in a time of great uncertainty. I protest this war because I care about all people, not just Americans.

All people will suffer from this war. I get just as upset seeing the images of American POWs as I do the injured Iraqis. Any way you look at it, war is murder. Those paying the price are not the ones sending the troops into battle. I will not rally and cheer for a president who constantly invokes his God to bless "our" country and "our" troops, while those very same troops are forced to slam cruise missiles on innocent people. It is indeed patriotic and human to proclaim shame on George Bush for sending Americans to kill in what continues to be an unjust and immoral war. War is not the time to be quiet and blindly follow leaders.

It is the time that we must question everything our leaders do and say. If that's not American, I don't know what is.

Carrie Brown
Near Eastern studies graduate student, APJME president

Oscar views covered by freedom of speech

This letter is in response to Pete Seat's Wednesday letter. I do not remember free speech being limited to television events other than the Oscars. You argued that it was disgusting for Mr. Moore to express his views at the Oscars because it was supposedly inappropriate, but the First Amendment does not limit someone to only expressing themselves when it is comfortable to the majority. In addition, I think it was good for Mr. Moore to use what little media attention he had to raise concern about the war. There has been almost no media attention on the anti-war protest beyond the occasional, "Twenty-five protesters of Operation: Iraqi Freedom were arrested today." Dissent at any time is the right of every individual and integral to a democracy.

As to your comments on the legality of the 2000 election: I suggest you read some of the rigorous law reviews that have been published by conservative and liberal law professors who view the Supreme Court decision as an act of politics, and not of real legal deliberation. Even the Supreme Court recognized the bias of their actions by including in their ruling that it was to establish no precedent. They knew that they were making a one-time decision to put in a conservative that they favored. I highly recommend that you look beyond the Electoral College debate and analyze the legal validity of the Supreme Court decision. The ruling can be found at www.supremecourtus.gov.

David M. Mack
biochemistry and economics senior

Peace activists can still be patriots, support country

Caitlin Hall's column on patriotism was exactly what I needed to hear amidst this attack on the American public that might be brave enough to think "outside the box." What happened to thinking objectively about things before we crusade to the Middle East waving our "International Police Force" flag, acting as if we are the "good guys?" Being a patriot does not mean mindlessly believing the crap that this administration feeds the American public; that's a dictatorship: The very thing we're trying to rid Iraq of, according to the Bush administration. Being a patriot does not mean that we hate the troops, or our veterans, it means that we love our country and our freedom. And being a patriot most certainly does not mean that we think highly of Saddam Hussein. No one does. Being a patriot means protecting our country, and the last time I checked, we're not fighting on our land, we're on their land. Patriotism is protecting this country, not going off to kill everyone that we don't like.

S. Michael Olguin
education and religious studies senior

Passerby displayed lack of manners at anti-war protest

I wanted to share an experience I had on campus Monday and was totally appalled by. On March 25, there was a woman in front of the Administration building who stood up and talked about how she felt about the war, and was encouraging others to stand up as well and share their thoughts. The woman spoke without taking a stance and even gave a warm prayer out to our military. While she was speaking, another student who was crossing campus stopped directly in front of her, laughed and turned to her friend and cracked a joke about her wasting her time. Not only did this girl speak loudly enough for everyone to hear it, but she said it with a smile. She then proceeded to pull out her cell phone and call a friend to leave a giggling message telling her friend to come speak about the war on campus when she got out of class, because she knew she had nothing better to do. I was disgusted with her manners, so I stared in shock, and she had the nerve to ask me what I was looking at. What was I looking at? I was looking at the spectacle this girl had just created for herself. I could not believe that she was doing this; she was also wearing a shirt that affiliated her with a greek organization. If I were a part of her organization, I sure would not have claimed it. Not only was she disrespectful to the woman speaking, but she also misrepresented something she supposedly stood for. I wanted to let everyone out there know that we all have different interests, some people watch all the war coverage and some watch none. Some people take sides and speak about it and others don't. Something we all have though are feelings, and I would like to hope that the majority of us college students are mature enough to respect other people's thoughts and ideas in this time of difficulty. Right now all we have is each other, so please respect your fellow Americans.

Vanessa Young
business sophomore

U.N.'s opinion irrelevant to morality of war on Iraq

Around campus and other places, I've been hearing many people claim that the war on Iraq lacks moral legitimacy because the United Nations did not approve it. I will argue that in fact the moral legitimacy of the war is independent of the United Nation's attitude toward it.

First, the approval of the United Nations is not a sufficient condition for the moral legitimacy of any war. It is possible for the U.N. to support a war that is not morally justified. Imagine a world in which all nations except one have become totalitarian. The U.N., in such a world, might vote to invade the remaining free nation. Yet it's implausible that this vote carries moral weight, for this would be a clear case of aggressors attacking a free nation. I will assume that offensive wars are not morally legitimate since I don't have space to argue this point.

Secondly, the approval of the United Nations is not a necessary condition for the moral legitimacy of any war. In the previous hypothetical scenario, the U.N. might pass a resolution condemning the free nation's attempt to defend itself. Yet it's implausible that this vote carries moral weight, for just as individuals are right to defend themselves from the initiation of force by others, so are nations. Since a free nation may defend itself without U.N. approval, approval is not necessary for moral legitimacy.

Now, since the approval of the U.N. is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition, we should conclude that the moral legitimacy of this war is independent of the U.N.'s stance toward it. Moreover, one cannot object by claiming that the U.N.'s approval is contingently needed for a war to be morally legitimate, and that my examples only serve to show that a U.N. comprised of dictatorships has no moral function. The U.N. is an organization whose membership in fact includes oppressive dictatorships, totalitarian societies, and other disgusting examples of political depravity. Membership in the U.N. is granted on the basis of merely being a nation, not being a free nation or anything like that. Thus, we should remember that morality is independent of legality. Keep in mind the National Socialists received a plurality of votes when they obtained power in Germany. Pick any nation and you will find an immoral law.

If this war is immoral, then no U.N. vote can change that. If this war is moral, then the U.N. acts wrongly by opposing it.

J. Brennan
philosophy doctoral student

Anti-war protesters should not harass ROTC members

I would first like to begin by saying that I do not support this war, and secondly I do not support Bush's efforts. However, I am appalled by the behavior of some of the students on this campus toward ROTC cadets, especially the female cadets. I have heard many accounts of male students harassing the female cadets on this campus, blaming these students for the war. They did not have a hand in this decision; they serve this nation because of their duty to our country. It is inappropriate to direct the aggressions against the war toward those students who may be sent to Iraq within the coming year. These cadets may not support this war or Bush, but it is their duty to support our freedom. They are risking their lives so that we may continue to live ours in the comforts that we have grown so accustomed to.

Don't disrespect them. I support our troops because they joined the armed forces to protect our way of life. They may not want to fight in this war, but it is their duty to undertake any military actions called upon them by our nation. I would like to also say that I am not in the ROTC.

Lisa Labita
general biology senior