ÎA' Mountain usually white; red, white and blue is new

This is in response to Stefanie A. Reeves's Thursday letter to the editor about "A" mountain not being re-painted in its "usual" manner. Painting the "A" white is actually painting it in its usual fashion. It was painted red, white, and blue sometime after Sept. 11, 2001. Before then it was always white, with the exceptions of being green during St. Patrick's Day and being gold/maroon if ASU came down and painted it. For the 12 years I have lived in Tucson, white has been the normal color for "A" mountain, not red, white and blue.

Emily Downing
undecided sophomore

Columnist misunderstands importance of opposition

I would like to share a quote with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Bustamante. Hermann Gšring, an essential part of Hitler's regime, said, "You do not have to do anything, besides telling the people that they are being attacked, reproaching the pacifists for their lack of patriotism and claiming that they are endangering the country."

Also I urge everybody to take a look at: http://www.newamericancentury.org. The site belongs to a think tank that counts Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz among its members. It is very interesting to see that Wolfowitz had the Iraqi war more or less planned out since 1997.

Sebastian Treusch
molecular and cellular biology junior

ÎTrue patriots' support war effort, soldiers, president

This is a reply to Caitlin Hall's Thursday column,"The war of words." Personally, I do not think you understand why people are being called "unpatriotic."

Patriotism is most definitely not just "support for the war, and support for its troops." However, according to the Encarta College Dictionary, it is the love of one's country, "being a proud supporter or defender of his or her country and its way of life." Nowhere does it say that you cannot disagree with the majority of Americans who believe this war is proper at this point in time. However, it does mean that it is our duty to not allow the deaths of servicemen to be in vain, and it certainly means that a patriot is obligated to remember the 3,000 innocent victims of the Sept. 11 slaughter. Going beyond just patriotism for our country, or nationalism as you describe it, just being a living human being on this earth obligates you to not forget the 1.5 million Iraqi men, women and children who have been maliciously and wantonly killed under the rule of Saddam Hussein's regime.

These days, the patriotism of certain people is being called into question because of their forgetfulness of their duties as American citizens. We must not back down and allow the deaths of more innocents. We must root out a major contributor to the hatred of so many against the United States and other peace loving nations. The time is here; the time is now. The military men and women who are currently fighting and dying for a cause that many of them actually do believe in need our prayers and our support. They are the true patriots; they are the proud supporters and defenders of our great country. All Americans should follow their example. We should stand by the president and we should stand by the effort of so many soldiers from around the world to protect the wonderful nation that we all live in. Whether you like it or not, you must stand by them in this conflict if you want to call yourself a patriot. Despite my attempt, however, I do not think that you will ever be able to grasp the meaning of the word patriot, nor will you ever deserve to be an American or enjoy the freedoms of this country.

Brandon Smith
pre-business sophomore

Peaceful protests Înoble' reactions to ignoble war

I have great respect and admiration for the perseverance, strength, and dedication of our American armed forces. However, simply because our soldiers are dying in this war does not make their efforts noble. In fact, this war effort is so ignoble that it desecrates the lives and deaths of American soldiers and civilians. Those that are dying in Iraq, whether American, Iraqi, civilian or military, are dying because our leaders have succeeded in lulling much of the public into a state of pathetic somnambulism.

If we could somehow transport the rotting and burned corpses, the severed limbs, the broken bodies of those killed into the living rooms of sleepwalking Americans (those who accept that lives cut short are a legitimate price to pay for gas at $1.50 per gallon), perhaps the stench of murder would change their minds about the just nature of this war. Or, perhaps they would simply step around the scorched lumps of flesh decaying in their homes and spray a nice refreshing mist of cheap gasoline up their noses to disguise the smell.

Right now the most noble thing an American can do is peacefully protest and peacefully prevent the horrific agendas of the greedy death-hawks that illegitimately run this country.

Matt Rotando
English literature graduate student

Freedom from criticism not part of freedom of speech

Maybe I didn't study the Constitution enough, but last time I checked, the First Amendment didn't say, "Freedom of speech without having to face criticism, anger from others, and responsibility for what you say applies to all of us from the Dixie Chicks to Emile Steinhoff in Friday's Wildcat." Anti-war advocates seem to think that because we have the First Amendment, they don't have to take responsibility or criticism for anything they say. Well, guess what? Just like you have the freedom to voice your anti-war views, I and the other 78 percent of Americans who support the war have the right to say you are an anti-American moron who needs to move to France, rather than take all the advantages from living in this great nation you hate. The First Amendment means you won't be thrown in jail for speaking your anti-war views, but it doesn't free you from criticism and from taking responsibility for what you say. Yes, you have the freedom to express your opinion, and that is what makes this country great. That doesn't free you from being called anti-American, because that is us expressing our freedom of opinion.

Anthony W. Nelson
criminal justice senior

U.S. control of Iraq would attack nation's idealism

Saddam Hussein is a dictator and has not been successfully leading his people into a decent lifestyle, despite the fact that Iraq is the second biggest oil producer and holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil (behind Saudi Arabia).

Under the government of Saddam Hussein, the country has not been able to defend its people. The poverty due to embargo kills 300,000 children each year. However, the love of the Iraqi people to their president, as well as their nationalistic pride, has left them to live in poverty rather than having a much better life under the control of Western countries such as the United States.

The threatening of the Islamic terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda has been an important issue to the United States. The billionaire bin Laden's family relations with Saudi Arabia's official government, as well as international public opinion about Saudi Arabia's lack of human rights has deteriorated the country's relations with the United States.

In addition, the prolonged strikes in Venezuela have led to the drastic decline of its oil production resulting in its unstable government and economy. About 20 percent of the oil in the United States was supplied from Venezuela. Therefore, to find alternatives to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia was the main reason of President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq. It is clear that the United States and its allies have targeted Iraq due to Iraq's huge oil production capacity. The best solution is to attack Iraq, remove Saddam, and establish a puppet government, controlled directly by the United States.

To complete such a plan, the United States and its allies only need a few simple reasons: The current Iraqi government has not been able to run the country due to its poverty; Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, which are developed by using the high capital out of the oil production; and the most important is that Iraq, unlike the United States, does not have any strong allies. In conclusion, I can see that the ambitions of the United States and its allies to take over Iraq, if successful, could result in a better economic future for these countries as well as for the Iraqi people. However, for the Iraqi people, having their nation controlled by the coalition countries would result in another attack of Iraqi people despite their powerlessness; namely, the attack of their nationalism and idealism.

Aulia Rachmat
UA Alumnus, Class of 1997
Jakarta, Indonesia