Editor:
Well, well, well, Jessie Fillerup ("Bosnia intervention moral obligation," Dec. 4) has again astounded me with her ignorance of good writing and her inability to scratch beyond the surface of the facts.
First of all, let's point out why Ms. Fillerup needs to take writing lessons. First of all, she states "... we must temper our American arrogance which urges us to discipline other countries like a parent disciplines squabbling children ..." and then states "Imagine that you are a parent and that your four children are trapped in a burning building and you can only save two." Hmmm ... isn't that an example of what they call contradiction?
Or how about when she states, "... Bosnia's mission consists of peacekeeping with minimal risks for the American military," and then later in the article, "Bosnia is a fight we can win and we must fight the fights that we can win." Are we condoning only entering fights that we can win, Jessie? Well, then we wouldn't get into any wars Ms. Fillerup, because no one wins in war. Now let's discuss Ms. Fillerup's argument.
First of all, Ms. Fillerup states that we didn't engage in conflict in Rwanda because it posed a serious threat, but we are engaging in conflict in Bosnia because it poses minimal risk. First of all, governments don't think about people when it comes to war Ÿ people are expendable to them, they think about resources, money, commodities. The only reason America didn't get involved in Rwanda, but is getting involved in Bosnia, is because Rwanda doesn't mean squat to the government politically or financially, but Bosnia does.
Secondly, Bosnia does not pose a minimal risk to American troops. A slaughter is going on, and to those who are shooting, it doesn't matter if it's a soldier or a child. There is no minimal risk in war, a life is a life, but Ms. Fillerup is treating it as if it were expendable, which makes her no better than the execution division of the CIA. Bosnia isn't about keeping peace; it's about political agendas, and the Bosnian children "who can't count to ten or distinguish apples from oranges" are platforms for political leaders to step on.
Now for the comparison to a sinking ship. Your eight grade teacher was right, Ms. Fillerup Ÿ only now, it is America which is the sinking ship, but since no one else in the world seems to help America when it needs help, we must help ourselves. America is wrought with illiteracy, AIDS, a higher rate of uneducated people thanks to the Republicans cutting federal spending on grants and loans, homeless, badly needed health-care reform, inflation and an economy that is shot to hell, yet you suggest that we should help everyone else with their problems.
If America continues to ignore its own problems, and continues to spend the likes of $15 billion on countries around the world (Israel), which the countries never pay back in any way, shape, or form, then America will sink while the world watches. I'm not suggesting that we overlook every atrocity around the world, but we are not the international policeman of the world. We are a country wrought with major problems that can't be overlooked while we try to maintain order in every part of the world.
Wars occur when change is imminent. That's why the American Revolution took place, that's why World War II took place, and NATO is asking us to try and keep the world from changing. Well, what would have happened to us if the American
Revolution get stopped halfway between? Where would we be? It's time to let change happen, in Bosnia, in America and in the rest of the world. Change is imminent, and we are morally obligated to let change happen.
Melissa Meister
Molecular and Cellular Biology Sophomore