Saddam did a lot more harm than Campbell lets on

Steve Campbell's Wednesday column, "Iraqi regime provides many examples of ruthlessness," actually downplayed the savage nature of Saddam's rule. There was no mention of the 5,000 Kurds Saddam Hussein gassed in 1988. When he crushed the uprising following the Gulf War, he did not just kill thousands of Kurds in the north. He murdered 50,000 Shiites in the south, destroyed 3,000 Kurdish villages, 900,000 Kurds were displaced and entire families were deported.

Mr. Campbell wrote " · Saddam decided to drain the marshes, creating a desolate land and killing thousands more." Again, an understatement. It was genocide. The marshes took up thousands of square miles and were the home of the marsh Arabs, who lived there for 6,000 years. In 1992, Saddam Hussein bombed the marshes with napalm and other chemical weapons. Almost all the inhabitants were either killed or fled. Forty thousand took refuge in Iran. Between 100,000 and 250,000 were scattered throughout Iraq. Of those, thousands were hunted down, sent to camps and executed. Poison was dumped into the marshes, and they were drained within six months.

Mr. Campbell also ignored the conditions in Iraqi prisons. Punishments include beatings, electric shock, acid baths, rape, amputations and other bodily mutilations. Some inmates have been placed inside metal boxes. Others have had biological experiments carried out on them. These sorts of practices are standard. Parents have been imprisoned because their children were overheard repeating uncomplimentary remarks about Mr. Hussein. Many thousands of Iraqis have been executed without due process of law.

I should not be overly critical of Mr. Campbell. The list of Saddam's heinous acts is far longer than any column can contain. Do I agree with the war on Iraq? It would be wonderful to free the Iraqi people from Saddam. But what would be the cost? Possibly 200,000 Iraqi military personnel were killed in the first Gulf War, and their country was devastated. If the outcome of this war is anything like that, it will be unacceptable. We will not know whether this war is right until it is over.

Sky Bauman
physics graduate student

Fighting for freedom in Iraq Îfallacious' motive for war

I must congratulate Steve Campbell for writing such an eloquent defense of a secondary justification of war with his piece "Iraqi regime provides many examples of ruthlessness." This justification is suggested to be even more potent than the primary justification of war, which is the threat of an attack.

Patriotic as it may seem, I must dissent. This secondary justification for war that Mr. Campbell presents is somewhat fallacious. Mr. Campbell suggests that, because of Saddam's authoritarian execution of all of dissenters, we should stand up to him. Mr. Campbell says that we should "liberate the Iraqi people" because we are "defenders of freedom."

It seems that, if we wanted to be defenders of ideals we value, then it would initially be necessary for us to be consistent with our values. Yet we are not. We definitely don't value democracy, a value closely tied in to freedom. If we believed that people who are directly affected by a choice should play a part in making that choice, then why should we

not heed the population of the world when deciding to go to war? It seems that, with the war, Bush, the principal representative of American values, made a decision not heeding the international community. Due to the inconsistency of standing up for our values, I see that there is no reason why the

justification of standing up for freedom should

be pursued. And to pursue it at the expense of

our brothers? And other American lives, that is inconsistent too.

Daniel Greenspan
philosophy and political science freshman

Authority to start war doesn't lie in hands of U.S.

What is the justification for war in Iraq if weapons of mass destruction are shown not to exist after an exhaustive search? According to Steve Campbell, the bottom line is that none of that should matter.

Mr. Campbell reasons that since Saddam is evil, he should be taken out. He tortures people. He kills people. Therefore, he should be removed. Who's to decide it is our responsibility to do this? According to Mr. Campbell, the answer is simple. We are the United States of America. Never mind that Mr. Campbell's simple answer fails to address his own question. There is a deeper problem with Mr. Campbell's reasoning that deserves consideration.

Our government exists to protect the rights of the American people. Going after Iraq to eliminate their weapons of mass destruction, assuming they are a threat to us, could be a form of protecting the rights of Americans. But going to war to protect the Iraqis from their own leaders is not, and has never been, the responsibility of our government.

If Mr. Campbell wants to give authority to some agency possessing a threat of force to decide which world leaders are fit to leave alone and which should be eliminated ÷ because of the threat they pose to their own people ÷ I suppose some sort of world government might be legitimate. Such authority, though, does not belong to the United States, even if we are the world's only superpower.

If moral authority did belong to us ÷ because we are the sole superpower ÷ then the moral basis for the use of force would be that "might makes right." But, that can't be our reason. That's Saddam's reason. The fact is, if weapons of mass destruction will be shown not to have existed in Iraq, the United States will lose credibility, and justifiably so. While knocking off Saddam might be a benefit to many in Iraq, depending on how we then handle our relations with, and obligations to, the Iraqis, it will never be a justification for this war. And it will never benefit all of the Iraqis. Remember that this war is killing thousands of innocents, just like Saddam.

Thaddeus Dombrowski
computer science senior

Protesters should speak their minds ÷ respectfully

I would like to begin by saluting Steve Campbell, Anthony W. Nelson and any one else who is speaking about the peace protesters. It is refreshing to hear the voices of the majority of the populous instead of the voices of the few minorities, ever persistent and annoying. These people help shed light on what the anti-war movement is about, and give information that allows the public to see the quiet opinion of the masses.

Secondly, I would ask anti-war protesters to please respect the peace that we have here and that our troops are dying to protect. While I do not like to see anybody protesting, it is healthy and necessary for democracy to work. However, people who scream in my face about the suffering of our soldiers and disturbing the peace they are trying to protect while I am attempting to eat is not free speech, or protesting. It is disgusting, disrespectful, and against the law. Hopefully you will get caught and punished accordingly.

These "re-enactors," if you will, somehow fail to comprehend that they are only acting out the life of many Iraqi civilians over the last 30 years. Should I act out a rape in the lunch area to demonstrate the evilness of Saddam's regime? People want to see that as much as we want to see you, so please, keep it to yourself. In response to Matt Rotando's Tuesday letter: Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Mr. Rotando speaks of President Bush as if he has been proven guilty of recreating Rockefeller's oil monopoly and using lurid descriptiveness in a vain attempt to justify his points rather than facts. Granted, we cannot disprove that oil is not a major factor in this war, which is why it should be left alone! It is like debating the existence of God; fun, but in the end pointless. Finally, have you thought to consider that the rotting and burned corpses of those killed in the living rooms is what the Iraqi people had before we invaded?

In the words of a very wise man, I remind everyone, "As we listen to them (anti-war protesters) we must remember that what they speak is their opinions, and should never be confused with fact" (Steve Campbell, Arizona Daily Wildcat). Perhaps these protesters should try lobbying instead, seeing as how they are not changing anybody's minds, and that they are only pissing people off.

James Lusk
undecided engineering sophomore

Israel constant target of criticism; deserves better

Mr. Noah Haiduc-Dale's letter claims it is "incredible how much it costs to have a good friend" in reference to Israel and then goes on to try and prove that the reason the Arab world hates the United States is because of their occupation.

I will try and address Mr. Haiduc-Dale's statements and pose a question to a few people who don't pass over a letter about the Middle East. First of all, Mr. Haiduc-Dale says, "While those countries have many problems of their own, Israel's illegal occupation of territory acquired by war is also creating our worst enemies." This is because the United States chooses not to throw Israel like a piece of meat to some hungry lions (the Arab states) to placate them as the United States has done on other issues. Secondly, the problems of the Arab states that Mr. Haiduc-Dale chooses not to blame for the hatred of America are as small as extreme corruption and as large as genocide. Let me state this clearly: this is not because of Islam. It is due in part to the fact that in order to get oil the world has given these countries whatever they want. As for friends of the United States, the United States pays Egypt to stay in the peace treaty and Saudi Arabia promotes hatred of the United States while taking out full-page ads in the New York Times. If these countries hate the United States, it is because the United States finds that the world and the people living in the region deserve better, and the United States has decided to stop appeasing those who hate America and Israel.

Lastly, to those who read about this issue and wonder why Israel is always under fire both in the Wildcat and around the world: People will always find a reason to hate Israel, from those on the right who compare Israel and Iraq to those on the left who consider Israel to be an apartheid. It didn't start with the occupation and it won't end with a Palestinian state. Please read more about the issues and think critically, because while no country has a monopoly on morality, Israel stands for democracy, religious freedom and basic freedoms that provide all Arabs in Israel the right to vote, which surprisingly makes it in selective company in the Arab World.

Avi Margolin
political science freshman

ÎThank God' Bush, Blair determined to oust Saddam

This is in response to Oscar Cordero's Wednesday advertisement to the campus community regarding his personal stupidity and lack of awareness. It appears to be the case that he has developed some misconceptions about the current war effort.

First off, the argument about the illegitimate election from three years ago has grown tired. Even Al Gore himself has discontinued this line of whiney rhetoric. Second, your assertion that the public is divided is a bit exaggerated. There are people who are opposed to any government action even when they want to take less money from those who pay taxes. Don't assume that a few people defecating and vomiting in front of traffic is representative of the sentiments of the American populace.

About North Korea: They possess the ultimate WMD: nuclear arms. For that very reason, we cannot wage the same type of war. There is still room for diplomacy; hey, we tried 12 years of it with Iraq. North Korea is in a poor wartime position for the United States from a strategic position (think geography). The oil argument is terrific, but why not invade Mexico or Saudi Arabia? Hell, let's take over the world by flying planes into tall buildings and bomb women and children on school buses.

The fact is, as even the most left-leaning would acknowledge, Hussein is a ruthless dictator who has already used chemical and biological agents on his own people. He is a sadist and a threat to the United States and other sovereign entities.

Thank God Bush (who I did not vote for) and Blair have the foresight to remove this global threat. Imagine if France and Russia had moved with some haste against Nazi Germany. The lives of 12 million would have been spared.

My last point is the timeframe you cited. George Bush never guaranteed only days of warfare. Even the '91 campaign required 40 days of bombing. It has been less than two weeks with incredible progress. God bless the troops and Godspeed with a safe return.

Brandon Hart
psychology senior

Democrats cost U.S. more cash than Bush tax plan

I find it humorous that Kendrick Wilson is so up in arms about the Bush tax plan that will "cost" the federal government $724 billion. One of his primary arguments against it is that it is fiscally irresponsible because it will balloon the debt further. The reason that Mr. Wilson's argument does not carry much weight is that his side of the political spectrum, the Democrats in the House of Representatives, just tried to pass an increase in spending over the next 10 years of $928 billion. Fortunately, Mr. Wilson's radical right was able to defeat that measure and maintain fiscal responsibility. I guess the clichŽ still fits that the Democratic party would rather the government spend the people's money.

Ryan Wicks
ecology and evolutionary biology and history sophomore

Unlike 9/11, there is no clear link for war with Iraq

In response to Chris Lutter's statements in the Wildcat article about the die-in protest, he stated, "How would they feel if their family was killed in an attack by a terrorist? You've got to support the president of your country no matter what. This is like burning the flag."

There are several problems that I found with your statements in junction with protesting the war. I believe that one of

the fundamental reasons for the anti-war movement is that there was no direct provocation or attack on U.S. citizens like 9/11. The war in Afghanistan was justified because there was direct proof linking those attacks on American soil to the country. However, at this point, there is no concrete evidence linking Iraq to any terrorist acts on U.S. soil nor is there any evidence of Iraq menancing U.S. foreign interests other than controlling one of the world's largest stockpiles of black gold: Oil.

The second problem I saw with the statement was that it reminded me of the attitudes of the Germans during World War II where the Germans were supporting Hitler's regime unconditionally despite the mistreatment of the Jews. Under no conditions should anyone ever support a leader of a country, especially our own because if we do, it will give rise to a dictatorial or even a totalitarian rule in the U.S. That is precisely why we must respect the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest. I will admit that the die-in demonstration was bordering on the extreme but they were voicing their opinions like you. Because of people like that, we live in a functional democracy, not a dictatorship.

Also, I suspect that Chris Lutter is a strong staunch supporter of the Republicans and if he is, I will ask him this, did he support Clinton during the Lewinsky and perjury scandals? If he didn't, he's guilty of violating his own statements.

Thomas Davis
creative writing junior