Illustration by Cody Angell

This past weekend, thousands of protesters lined streets around the world to protest the pending war in Iraq. While it is every citizen's right to voice his or her opposition of the U.S. government, the reality is that their voices will not change the Bush administration's approach to a regime change in Iraq.

Like it or not, war has come to the United States and it will likely continue for generations to come. Some battles will take place covertly, while others, like the one soon to take place in Iraq, will be on stage for the whole world to see. Accompanying the latter will be throngs of people coming out of the woodwork, using the war movement to create their own anti-war movement.

And why is that?

The reasons may vary. "What right do we have to impose our way of life on others?" or "I don't want to see our young men and women coming home in body bags." Both are common arguments used by the anti-warriors. But the more anti-war protests you attend, the more you will see that these peace activists truly have only one message: The United States is always wrong.

Steve Campbell

Ever since peace rallies became vogue in the 1960s, not a single war has had 100 percent support of the U.S. people. There were always demonstrators claiming that the United States was wrong.

Is it possible that the United States is always wrong when it prepares for war? Do these anti-war demonstrators know something that the highest levels at the Pentagon don't know? Or is it possible that the peace activists are simply na•ve and simplistic in their thought that violence is never needed to solve the world's problems.

These groups use catchy names like "Not in Our Name," and set up booths on college campuses across the United States in an attempt to pass their views on to impressionable minds, many of who have almost no experience in diplomacy or world affairs.

"Not in Our Name" set up a booth at the UA last fall and was handing out buttons for students to advertise for them. Their message was somewhat diminished, however, when they started offering students the opportunity to beat an effigy of our president in an odd way of showing their opposition toward the use of violence.

When asked what they would do if they were in the position to make the decisions, their response was that they would get out of the Middle East and let them run their region the way they want to. This is a very na•ve approach by those who have not learned from the past. Anti-war activists said the same thing about Europe before WWII. We should all be grateful they aren't in the position to make the important decisions.

Aside from the United States always being wrong, peace activists also try to distribute their belief that war is caused by the United States and not by its enemies.

They would have a difficult time convincing the people of Afghanistan, Kosovo or Panama that the source of their countries' problems originated in the United States. In fact, it was the presence of our military that eliminated many of the problems in their respective countries.

So, should these peace activists have the right to demonstrate against their country? Of course they should. But with that right should come the moral responsibility to pass on accurate information, not just opinions disguised as facts. This is especially true when these demonstrations take place on college campuses.

Institutions like the UA are going to produce the future leaders of this country. Shouldn't a solid education, rather than anti-war rhetoric that has led to nothing but destruction in our nation's past, influence the way these future leaders think?

The single most important job that our president has is to protect the citizens of this country. Groups of anti-war protesters will not deter this president from fulfilling this responsibility. Unlike previous administrations, the Bush administration will not let public opinion influence decisions made in Washington. The last time public opinion dictated our foreign policy, 19 U.S. soldiers came home from Somalia in body bags.

So while peace activists should be applauded for putting into practice their First Amendment rights, they may also want to consider why they have those rights. Those rights aren't afforded to them simply because they were born in this great country. American soldiers had to go to war to preserve those rights.