ÎExperts of war' men who hold knowledge in other fields, too

In response to Ms. Lopez's Feb. 7 comment titled "Don't consult kings of war when looking for peace," in which she wrote, "At this time we look for peace with Iraq, so why do we consult experts of war? Why not experts of living, communication and respect?"

Peace with Iraq is not something that can be achieved as long as Saddam Hussein is in power. For God's sake, the man thinks he was victorious in the Gulf War a decade ago. Why, because the U.N. forced us to leave him there. He's defiant, continues to evade weapons inspectors, and God only knows what will happen if he ever acquires nuclear weapons.

We consult experts of war because these very same people are the experts of living, communication and respect. It is not the goal of great, modern generals to have their men or innocent people die. They are trained in the very techniques of ensuring the safety of innocent people.

The true experts of war are dead. Unfortunately, this is true. We cannot turn to General George S. Patton, Winston Churchill, General William Tecumseh Sherman or George Washington for their wisdom. No, this time we place our faith in General Tommy Franks who will lead the greatest military the world has ever known into battle.

And no, we will not be fighting for American imperialism or for oil. If this was the case, we would have already invaded Venezuela with ease. No, we will fight for something far greater than oil. We will fight to give the Iraqi people their God-given right of freedom and at the same time ensure the security of the American people and our allies, even if they are too blind to realize it. We are going to remove Saddam Hussein and rebuild Iraq like we did Germany and Japan.

Yes, the soldiers are turning in their graves right now. But this time they are wondering why we didn't do something sooner. Go back a little over a year: We let the world play with matches and what happened? We got burned. So if you want to consult an expert of peace, living, and respect, ask yourself: "What would Churchill do?"

David Bishop
Near Eastern studies junior

Protesting war is fine, just do not call U.S. troops Îterrorists'

I am writing to express my agreement with George Bravo's letter from Feb. 7. I would like to expand upon the last part of his letter, in which he says that we must take action against Iraq immediately, as well as support our valiant men and women in the armed services.

There is indeed enough evidence to justify military action in Iraq. Saddam is a dangerous, ruthless villain that will stop at nothing to terrorize freedom-loving individuals all over the world. We also need to support our troops; these people joined the military for the sole purpose of defending their fellow Americans, and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to do so. If you don't support these courageous, selfless individuals, you have no right to be guarded by them.

Don't label our troops as terrorists, as some groups have tried to do. One such example is the "Not in Our Name" organization that called upon Americans to sign an anti-war petition that was eventually published in the New York Times. Any levelheaded, normal thinking, non-idealistic person can see that this organization subtly labels the United States as terrorists through its military actions.

To those against the war, I would like to say keep on protesting; it is your right as an American. Keep on protesting for the duration of the war (if it happens), or until a Democrat becomes president. Then we can bomb whomever we want, right? As far as "Not in Our Name" goes, I'll sign my name on Saddam's death warrant.

Justin Kunzelmann
communication senior

Supporters of Iraq war should examine U.S. policies and acts

George Bravo, I'm surprised that you believe Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions are a justification for war. Israel has violated more than five times the number of resolutions Iraq has violated, and would be in violation of more if the U.S. hadn't vetoed as many as it could (the resolutions condemning Israel's human rights violations typically pass with a vote of ~ 160-2, with the U.S. and Israel being the only two no votes, and then the U.S. vetoes them). The U.S. itself has refused to take part in the International Court, citing the fact that U.S. troops would not be provided with blanket immunity to prosecution for war crimes. A while back, Arizona executed a man in direct violation of an order by the International Court. The U.S. currently violates the Geneva Convention by holding "unlawful combatants" in "small cages with chain-link sides, concrete floors and metal roofs."

Yet there is no punishment for this arrogance. No smart bombs falling, and no invading troops. Is it possible that Iraq's violations of the law, perhaps in reaction to a perceived self-defense need, are somehow more severe than human rights violations being committed by the U.S. and Israel? Supporting the use of violence against Iraq while ignoring your own nation's misdeeds is an example of the hypocrisy and adherence to double standards that is becoming the norm for this country.

Kris Brown
electrical engineering senior