|
Letters to the editor
Response to Apathy
In response to the column that Rebecca Andrus wrote (“Apathy hurts America”) in the Nov. 11 issue of the (University) Chronicle:
Ms. Andrus seems to think that most SCSU students are apathetic towards issues of the world that affect them. I think that she is naive, yes, but not about our students’ apathy.
She is naive to think that by supporting liberal politics, she is supporting values like equality, freedom and responsibility. Maybe she can explain to me how we are supposed to fix our slipping economy by again sending liberal, “tax and spend” Democrats back to office.
These individuals supported raising taxes over and over again, creating a tax rate in Minnesota that is now currently three times higher than the rate of inflation of the whole country, creating a major deficit in our state. As is typical with most liberals, they want to change the world, but never can seem to figure out how to pay for it. As a senior ready to enter the job market soon, the fact that I may have to put up almost 50 percent of my income to the government in taxes is a scary prospect indeed. I suppose since some students are still on their parents’ dime, they don’t have to worry about this “real” problem.
As for the possible war in Iraq, I am not ready to denounce it until I get all the facts. Although no one likes to see our men and women being sent off to war, we as a country must wake up and realize that this is not the utopia that Ms. Andrus and others seem to think it is. The world has evil people (Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, etc.) who will never listen to reason. Unfortunately, these people need to be removed from their oppressive positions of power by force. That is the reality that we live in. Maybe Ms. Andrus and other “socially-conscious” liberals could use the time they spent not voting and write Saddam Hussein a really nice Christmas card asking him to stop being so mean to others. While they do that, the men and women of our armed forces will fight to preserve her right to spout off about things she obviously knows nothing about, and her wasted right to vote as well.
Ron Martin
Senior
War with Iraq hypocritical
In regards to Justin Byma’s letter (“An Open Letter to a Peacenik,” Nov. 14), we were appalled at your blind trust in war.
First of all, there is no such thing as a “war on terrorism.” You cannot fight a phrase. Terrorism is an unexpected event that you cannot control through war. Presupposing that Saddam Hussein will commit an act of terrorism on the U.S. is making assumptions that have no basis in logic. Yes, Hussein may wake up tomorrow and want to attack the U.S., but what is to say that a random American citizen won’t do the same? We agree that Hussein is an evil man, but how does that pertain to the “war on terrorism?”
Do you even know what a terrorist is? We will not bore you with the mundane details of what a terrorist is because it is your job as a citizen of the U.S. (a very patriotic one at that) to inform yourself of such issues. Perhaps you are making your connection between the “war on terrorism” and the war on Iraq with the sympathy you feel for the innocent Iraqi civilians who have already gone through years of terror at the hands of the American military, and will soon face a fear of terroristic attacks that will befall them if we do indeed go to war.
Do you even know what you are fighting for? President Bush does not care about the innocent Iraqi civilians that are in the hands of maniacs, as you claim, or there would not be sanctions imposed on them by our government. President Bush is not out to “bring stability and freedom to the Middle East.” He is, however, poised to dominate the world through military and economic power by gaining more military bases in the Middle East, which would add to the 130 countries that already contain our military. Perhaps the next time you wish to encourage peacekeepers to fight, you should find a better angle than supporting a government that in the past has given its support to men like Hussein, only to turn around and try to take him out when he ceases to cooperate with our demands. Or did you miss that history lesson?
Jessica Erickson
Senior, Social Work
Monica Swant
Senior, Marketing
This war is unjustified
There is a lack of objective thinking about going to war with Iraq. An example of this occurs in the Nov. 11 edition of the (University) Chronicle, when Amanda Culp (“Students Must Fight Ignorance”) stated that we should go to war because “Saddam is on his way to a full nuclear arsenal, has millions of pounds of mustard and VX gas.”
Realistically, the CIA has stated that they have no idea what the extent of Hussein’s weapons are. Therefore, it is difficult to say that we need to go to war because Hussein is on his way to a full nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, I am puzzled by the statement that we need to remove dangerous people in order to have peace. So in essence, we can create peace by going to war? I fail to understand this logic.
People need to do a few things in order to form an objective opinion about this issue. First, we need to be informed. This means using the mainstream media, but it also means including news sources from outside of our country.
Also, look at who is making the decisions. Many of the people who want to go to war have never been in a war. Vice president Cheney received five deferments so that he would not have to fight the war in Vietnam. President Bush did serve in the National Guard, but he has never seen a day of combat. If any of these individuals had ever been in war, then war is the last thing that they would want, not the first.
Finally, it is easy to say that we should go to war when it only affects other people. Therefore, it’s important to understand how the civilians of Iraq would be affected by war. It is also necessary to realize how members of our military will be affected by a war. Many will likely be maimed or killed. Keeping this in mind, people need to ask themselves if they would be willing to take part in a war against Iraq, while facing the possibilities of being maimed or dying. Would you?
Patrick Clark
Social Work
Bush called us terrorists
No, my title is not a false statement. However, I bet many think it is, so I will explain.
Most of the U.S. is on the side of the President, maybe not with the war issue, but certainly on several others. With that said, it is my understanding that many people believe what Bush says and we take what he says as literal. He might not be the most poetic of speakers, but we still listen.
Sept. 25, 2001, Bush had a press conference with Prime Minister Koisumi of Japan and stated that if “you harbor a terrorist, if you aid a terrorist, if you hide terrorists, you're just as guilty as the terrorists” (www.whitehouse.gov). He said these words not only this one time, but at almost every press conference, address to the nation and address to Congress.
I believe, as do probably all of us do, that those who aid, house, fund, feed, harbor and allow or ignore terrorism are terrorists. That is not my argument. My argument is this, why have we ignored all of the United States’ involvement with these terrorists? We aided the Taliban, we gave bin Laden money, we trained him and his troops, we gave them their weapons, but we are not terrorists.
No. We did this for them to help us with other nations. How naive of us to think that they wouldn’t do anything back to us.
We are the babysitters to the world, but who asked us? No one! Why do we constantly butt in? Why, instead of giving aid, weapons and funding to the terrorists to help us, don’t we give to those who need it: those oppressed, starving, sick and dying in these countries?
We knew about the Taliban and what they were doing, oppressing and controlling the people in Afghanistan for so long. Why did it take us getting attacked to realize that what they were doing was wrong? I am sure that Bush was not taking any of that into account when he made his speeches after 9/11, but if we are to take him literally when we listen to his addresses, then maybe he should take into account America’s past involvement and clarify what he is trying to say and the conditions thereof.
Cheyenne Malcolm
Sophomore
Reason beats rhetoric
I find it disturbing that just because there was a terrorist attack on Sept. 11 that most of the country will listen and believe whatever rhetoric they are told by the Bush administration.
If the impending war with Iraq is about U.S. security and not oil, then Saddam Hussein should’ve been taken out a decade ago. Is Hussein so much more dangerous now than he was then?
I also find it disturbing that the U.S. thinks itself and its allies should be the only countries in the world to have nuclear weapons. Just because the news media and the current administration talk about how willing Hussein is to use his weapons doesn’t mean it is true. I have seen no real evidence that Hussein is a threat to U.S. security. Maybe the U.S. should be disarmed because we are a threat to the rest of the world. We’re the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think the U.S should be disarmed. I am just trying to make a point about the hypocrisy that plagues this nation.
Tim O'Kennan
Political Science
|
|
|
|
Privacy Policy Network Advertising Article Syndication
|
|
