Justifications for Iraq war misinformed, hypocritical

Several points made by Justin Hogg in his Wednesday letter "Hussein is a deadly threat who needs to be delivered to justice" need some correction. Hogg argues that the United States should attack Iraq because Mr. Hussein hurled U.N. weapons inspectors out of his country in '98. One minute of research will reveal that it was the United Nations who took the inspectors off the job. Hussein claimed they were spying. They insisted he was becoming difficult. Both were probably telling the truth. Up until last month, Hussein would not let the inspectors return to his country. But now that he seems to be complying with the United Nations, we should wait.

Hogg asserts that Hussein has ties to terrorism and that an invasion of Iraq would fit snuggly within the War on Terror. All attempts by the Bush administration, foreign governments and journalists to link Hussein to last year's terror acts have met with failure. The most damning morsel of evidence is an unverifiable claim that one of the hijackers met an Iraqi ambassador in Europe. Even if this could be proven, it would be no grounds for destroying Baghdad. Hussein is a secular dictator, not a fundamentalist. He is an infidel in the eyes of Osama bin Laden.

Hussein poses no threat to the United States or American allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons because we gave them to him (The Associated Press, Sept. 30). No one knows whether he has nuclear capability. The inspectors should be able to figure that out soon. Either way, he is innocuous because he is concerned only with power. Now that he is no longer America's bad-boy regulator in the Mideast, he cannot gain more power. All he can do is keep what he still has. By attacking anyone he would ensure his own destruction. The manner in which he fled Kuwait and his recent concession to the United Nations are evidence that he has no interest in being a martyr.

It would be hypocrisy for President Bush to overthrow a world leader simply for being an evil man when the United States (led by uncle Reagan and daddy Bush) energetically supported the same man through the bloodiest years of his reign. It would also seem hypocritical to overthrow one vicious regime while funding others (think Pakistan and Uzbekistan). Why aren't we rushing to overthrow them? Because doing so would destroy business deals, whereas tossing out Mr. Hussein would create them.

Logan Smith
philosophy senior

ÎEmpty Spaces,' comic section meant for humor, not for hate

In regards to Annette Mpinja's letter, "'Empty Spaces' guilty of promoting racial stereotyping," I am very sorry to see that an educated person of this university has missed the purpose of the comics section. True, not every African-American can tear up the dance floor, and some Caucasians can actually groove. Comics are intended to be a humorous escape from reality ÷ not a covert means to transmit hateful messages.

The stereotypes in comics are not detrimental to anyone. I can laugh about my two left feet just after I enjoy crude humor about human feces consumption.

In short, lighten up!

Brian Gowler
mechanical engineering junior

D.C. protestors were not as peaceful as column claimed

In response to Caitlin Hall's Thursday column "Lessons in Îcapitol' punishment," I would like to present a different viewpoint from someone who was also there.

I currently work in our nation's capitol and I realize that Ms. Hall's one-sided "police are trying to suppress our views" article might be believed by people who were not actually in D.C. last week. First off, the protesters were trying to shut down the entire city, admittedly. Is this really fair to the thousands of people trying to do nothing but get to work that day? The drive into D.C. from where I live in Alexandria is a constant headache, and having protesters shut down areas such as the 14th Street Bridge isn't really productive to either party, is it? The police were making an attempt (and a successful one) to keep the city running.

Hall's claim that the protesters were causing no harm and simply trying to voice their opinions is also slightly off. Does Ms. Hall want to tell one of my good friends here that her group was "just trying to get a peaceful point across" when they smashed in windows of the Citibank building where she works as she was arriving?

No one is buying this anymore, Caitlin. Debate is good for our democracy ÷ attempted chaos is not.

Manuel R. Espinoza
Class of 2002

Wildcat has freedom to print any ad, no matter how Îgross'

I find Thursdays' letter "Wildcat, state senate candidate should both be ashamed of ad" written by Mike Rosenthal to be missing a great deal of logic. True, Mr. Rosenthal is entitled to his opinion, but he should recognize that the Wildcat is not responsible for what a paid ad entails in its publications.

Mr. Rosenthal critiques the ad itself. I'll admit the ad does not belong in a state senate campaign, but that belongs to the discretion of the campaign manager. The Wildcat does not choose what is in an ad or not. Therefore, it is not responsible for an ad that some might find "gross." It is because of these ads that the campus is able to read the Wildcat for free.

I am glad that Mr. Rosenthal realizes the constitutional right of freedom of speech and press, but he fails to realize that the ad in question has the right to be printed. Mr. Rosenthal can express how he feels about the ad however it appears as long as he does not blame the Wildcat for the content involved. Next time he should take his comments about an ad to the people who make it, not the Wildcat.

Kandace Lopez
computer engineering freshman