Film festival article ignored pro-Palestinian side of debate

I am writing in regard to the article in Wednesday's Wildcat, "Controversy arises at film festival." It is ironic to me that several of those in attendance mentioned the slanted view of the media in this conflict, and then the actual reporting on the debate itself was more slanted than I could imagine.

The films were mostly interviews with residents of the occupied territories sitting on the demolished remnants of their homes days after they had been destroyed by Israeli troops. Of course these people are going to be upset and presenting an emotional point of view. The purpose of the films was not to present "both sides" of the issue, and the filmmakers had no responsibility to do so.

After the films were shown, there were several people who spoke up during the discussion. There were several Palestinian families in the audience, as well as other foreign-born peoples and Americans who were upset by the films and expressed solidarity with the people of Gaza and Jenin. There were also several Israelis and Americans in the audience who spoke out against the films, calling them propaganda and misleading.

However, the article by Mr. Mackey presents the reader almost exclusively with rebuttals by pro-Israeli students. This is irresponsible journalism and only furthers the perception that the media in this country is pro-Israeli.

Furthermore, the pro-Israeli students at this university should have been more sensitive about showing up to a film series about Palestinian loss and saying things like "I don't believe (this massacre) ever happened." For the Wildcat to report only these opinions (which remind me eerily of those who don't believe in the Holocaust) is cruel to the families and supporters of a people who have been oppressed for over 50 years now by Israeli fundamentalists supported by the U.S. government. Really, in the end, I feel like anyone who saw these films and was not affected by the casualties of this war needs to rethink some things. Just two days ago, a 4-year-old was killed when an Israeli helicopter flew into a busy city and blew up a car driving on a street. Stories like this go on and on. For those who want to educate themselves on the history of Israeli aggression, I suggest "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World," by Avi Shlaim.

Greg Schnaar
soil, water and environmental science graduate student

Soldiers enlisted to support country, not to invade Iraq

I am writing this in response to Steve Campbell's Tuesday column concerning the possibility of supporting U.S. troops but not the war. I think it's important that I say a few things about our troops before going off on any weird tangents. For starters, most of the men and women in the armed forces have joined of their own volition, but did not necessarily join for the purpose of invading Iraq. However, these same people should have no illusions that you might and indeed will have to put your life on the line at some point and you will sacrifice all conflicting convictions and many of your rights in "saluting the uniform, not the man." Any soldier anywhere in the world should understand this, but should also understand that many activists support the man and not the uniform.

We are now deep in the death throes of Baghdad, and soon it will be time to hunker down and hope loved ones' names don't scroll across the CNN ticker. This is really the extent of my support, which is not even a silent prayer as it were, but it is the most anyone can demand of me. If this makes me unpatriotic, well to hell with it then. Americans have a very short memory anyway, and within a few years I'll be back to absolute zero with even the most conservative hawks who will have long wiped my slate clean with less cynical liberals.

I digressed here, but I think what I meant to say here was that I was never afraid of terrorists. Even watching the smoke billow up from the Pentagon in a small Maryland town, I knew that there was nothing to be afraid of. The government has been trying to focus our crosshairs on terrorism for years, but for what possible reason? Suitcases filled with sarin gas or marijuana? What's the difference really? There's only so many people rummaging through suitcases these days, let alone cargo ships. Saddam never threatened me or anyone in this country with terrorism prior to Operation Liberate Iraq, or whatever it's called. But rest assured, because on that day I'll gladly press a button and launch hell on the evil ones, whomever they may be. Until then, though, I don't need the kind of protection U.S. troops are providing me.

Brooks Kary
agricultural economics sophomore

Liberals only protest wars led by Republicans; ignore others

Following yesterday's liberation of Baghdad, I think it was very appropriate that the left-wing group "UA Peace Refuge" made more ignorant, unfounded claims. When Bubba Clinton was president, he went ahead and bombed Iraq (without United Nations approval). He, as well as Tom Daschle, explained that Iraq was a threat. Bubba also decided to bomb in Yugoslavia. Where was UA Peace Refuge or any other hippie group claiming to support appeasement-style peace? Janeane Garofalo was honest, "It wasn't cool to protest Bill Clinton." What she meant was peace only matters when Republicans are in power. If a leader supports abortion, an escalation of social programs, and calls bombing campaigns and wars "peace-keeping missions," (AKA Democrats) then peace groups, just like women's groups, simply turn the other way in silence. This past week, we have seen Iraqis thanking our troops and tearing down symbols of a brutal regime. Anti-war protesters attack President Bush and the Pentagon by labeling them "asses." The "world" that these "peace activists" strive for is nothing more than a Marxist fantasy and delusion.

It is for these reasons that I ask them to be even more vocal! Liberals have no idea how much they help the Republican cause when they voice their radical beliefs. It is at these demonstrations where their social class/race warfare, hypocrisy, and anti-American sentiment are most visible to voters. Rational people see right through these false claims of peace.

Charles A. Peterson
history junior

Peace Refuge should embrace reason rather than emotion

In response to yesterday's excerpts from the Socialist Party platform, "Working to create a different kind of world," I'm not sure if it was written in all seriousness, or just as a prank by the College Republicans (if so: Nice one, guys). But if it was, indeed, written by this new utopian campus group, it's just a little scary.

First, they suggested "This war is not in the interests of the people of Iraq." After viewing Wednesday's coverage of Iraqis celebrating in Baghdad and America (via the evil, deceptive corporate media), their argument just doesn't seem to hold as much water as it used to (if it ever did).

To suggest that Iraqis won't be better off without Saddam Hussein is equivalent to suggesting that Russia and the involuntary members of the Soviet Union wouldn't be better off without Josef Stalin.

We, as a conscientious campus community, have the responsibility to pool some money together, buy these people some plane tickets to Baghdad (once the airport reopens), and set up a podium in downtown Baghdad where they can tell the Iraqi people themselves that they won't be better off now that Hussein is gone. Surely they won't receive the same response that Hussein's statue received after it was ripped from its foundation Wednesday.

These guys began one paragraph of their column with "We feel · " That's the problem. While many Americans are capable of coming up with sound, logical reasons to oppose this war, groups of people such as these "feel," rather than think, their way to their conclusions. They're emotionally ÷ not factually ÷ driven. Their heartstring pulling drowns out the voice of logic. Such a method of "thought" is not a sound way to conduct foreign policy.

Stalin's progeny is out of power. America, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are being praised by freed Iraqis. Once again, the far left has found itself on the wrong side of history, and they're none too happy about it.

They're now a bunch of coiled rattlesnakes backed into a tiny, unpopular corner. Expect more furious, vicious venom is spewing from them than ever before.

Shane Dale
political science senior

Columnist presents skewed view

This is in response to Phil Leckman's erroneous column in Monday's Wildcat. Your comparison with Sept. 11 victims and Iraq is an error in logic. On Sept. 11 the American people were attacked, and united, we attacked Afghanistan to protect ourselves against future terror. The group "September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows" was not the suffering party in Iraq.

The Iraqi people who have greeted liberating forces with open arms since the realization that this time we would not leave Saddam and his terror institutions standing were the victims of Saddam. And by their overwhelming response, they most certainly support the war. There is a line between justice, vengeance, and protection. The war in Iraq is justice for the long- suffering Iraqi people and protection for both Iraqis and Americans from the threat, but it is in no way vengeance.

Your introduction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also highly skewed as well. The Israelis only use force against specific entities and try at great lengths to avoid civilian casualties that are brought on by terrorists hiding in highly populated areas. The Palestinians directly target civilians that are not at the same moral level as the Israeli military. In fact, all of the escalation has been orchestrated by the Palestinian Authority. You say this war is about revenge for the damaging of national honor when this is about stability and protection. I'd recommend you take a closer look at current events before coming to your erroneous conclusions that split from reality.

Matthew Miller
economics and computer science junior

War coverage obscures labor issues

While working American families are distracted watching the news coverage of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration and its anti-labor allies in Congress are busily working to destroy their very livelihoods.

Latest on the agenda is overtime compensation. The Republican sponsored HR1119 was recently passed by the House Education and Workforce Committee and is on its way to become law. This bill will allow companies for the first time to force employees that worked overtime into accepting time off instead.

In late March, the White House announced plans to revamp the 50-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The proposal would eliminate overtime compensation from "learned professionals" ÷ defined by the new act as anyone who gains skills or knowledge through job experience, military training, technical school, or higher education. The definition includes every working American.

George Nilsen
pharmacy doctoral student

Troops' lack of outerwear Îunusual'

Can we take another look at all the photos of American troops running around everywhere in Iraq ÷ including through the streets of Baghdad and in Saddam's palaces? Notice anything unusual? How about not one of them is wearing anything remotely resembling any NBC (nuclear, biological or chemical) outerwear. Could it be that the best trained and best equipped army in the world consists of a bunch of devil-may-care-dumbasses, or could it be that the U.S. government knew all along about Iraq's complete lack of weapons of mass destruction?

Wayne Sumstine
UA alumnus