2
Opinion
Thursday, January 17, 1991
The Battalion
Opinion Page Editor Jennifer Jeffus 845-3314
Editorials
Editorials expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial board and do not
necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of
Regents.
Support troops, peace
The Battalion Editorial Board supports all United States
troops serving in the gulf, especially those from Texas A&M, and
wishes them a safe trip home as soon as possible.
We still do not, however, support the decision to attack Iraq
in order to "liberate Kuwait."
We might not believe in or support the decision of the
President, but we believe in the lives of our young men and
women.
Now that our hopes for peace have been dashed, we have
another hope — one for the restoration of peace.
The Battalion Editorial Board
ytliak a day!
Our automatic!
mail Sorter
and automatic!
poslagfe scanner
both broke down...
U.S. POST OFFICE
"vi!
How can
you £et
an:
COMING SOON: |pw
rate hike j ^
still works.., J ^
'W'ir r i*
MA&6ULIES
©miTWE FBOO
NEW J6P69V
Gulf crisis lacks moral claim
JL alking to a group of
young writers, Gertrude Stein once re
ferred to that dreadful war at the begin
ning of our century as a "nice war."
The truth is that in that fateful year of
1917, the carnival of death took place in
Europe and ended one of the most
hopeful periods in Western history
with corpses which exceeded those in
the Black Plague.
Verdun, the bloodiest battle of all,
started with the mere hope, as general
Von Falkenhayen later confessed, that
the French would "bleed to death."
The battle lasted six months without re
mission. There was no exact account of
the losses, but the estimate was that
about one million men lost their lives
on both sides. That battle was several
times renewed; both sides ended al
most exactly where they began, except
for the presence of the dead.
Margaret Thatcher, when uttering
her belligerent remarks in regard to the
Persian Gulf, seems to forget the year
1917 completely. That summer, the
British attack on the Somme lost 60,000
men in one day July 1) without gaining
any ground.
The lieutenants from Cambridge and
Oxford and other great public scnools,
who in tailored uniforms and stoic fa
talism led their platoons to the top, had
the highest death rate. The fighting
Hao
Zhang
Reader’s Opinion
continued past November. By then the
British casualities had passed 400,000
"including," as a recent author says,
"the men who in the normal way
would have been leaders in politics, the
arts, the sciences, commerce and in
dustry."
Big words from shrewd politicians
could not disguise the cruel fact that
young men morally and physically at
tested as flowers of the nation were be
ing drafted, stripped naked, weighted,
stamped and sent off to be slaughtered
like cattle. It was the systematic extinc
tion of fittest. For no particular pur
pose.
JL erhaps ironically,
when hundreds of thousands of troops
are pouring into the Arabian desert re
ady for blood, our century is ending
with decisively humanistic triumphs in
Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, China
and much of tne world. In a time of un
precedented hope, one cannot think of
a single legitimate reason for young
men and women to lose their lives in
that remote desert whose historic
grievances, national claims and social
mores are totally alien to the West.
To restore the dictatorial regime in
Kuwait? To defend a kingdom that
treats half of its population no better
than animals? To excnange lives for oil?
Or are the politicians' sado-masochistic
needs for aestruction and self-destruc
tion so enormous that they are totally
incapable of peace? Or perhaps they
feel peace has been around for too long
and the world has incurred debts to the
f ods; now the world must pay its debts
y sacrificing its cherished young in a
ritual at one of the Muslim's holiest
sites.
The heart of the matter is that there is
no metaphysical difference between
the line in the sand and that line in Ver
dun, both equally lacking in moral
claim. While the weapons on both
sides have become a little fancier and
infinitely more deadly, life remains just
as fragile and precarious.
The Persian Gulf Crisis has pro
gressed to a stage where the potential
loss of life would make Verdun look
like a picnic.
If young men and women are to sac
rifice their lives, they must do so for
moral reasons. To do otherwise is mur
derous and disastrous. I have no
doubt. Simply no doubt.
Hao Zhang is a graduate student in eco
nomics.
Mail Call
Don't blame oil
EDITOR:
How can anybody state that the Persian Gulf area does not involve us? I
really question people who scream out "No blood for oil," as they drive off by
themselves in their cars and trucks.
Or those who argue about why we must fight for oil, as they sit with their
engines running at the end of the parking aisles. Then there are those who
say there is no relation to the oil fields in the Persian Gulf and our national
defense, and then ride the elevator to the second floor of the building.
Don't you get it? If you eat, drive or ride a car, truck, bus, plane or train,
wear anything with synthetic material or do anything that uses energy nee
dlessly, this confilict is for you.
Don't give me any of your hysterical cries that this is all for Big Oil. I know
it is, but Big Oil became Big through our selfish indulgences.
Trying to blame anyone but ourselves is nothing but the deepest form of
hypocrisy. Don't try and say you don't want the government to fight to de
fend your lifestyle. You (we) aren't ready and would be unable to accept a
cold turkey life change. Think about it.
The most anybody can do at this time is to pray for a rapid resolution to
the crisis, and to take a good, long hard look at ourselves, If takes a lot more
courage to look at ourselves for change than to sit in our cars and criticize
someone else.
David Wilkins
graduate student
Have an opinion? Express it!
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters
for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. There is no guarantee that
letters submitted will be printed. Each letter must be signed and must include the classification, address and
telephone number of the writer. All letters may be brought to 216 Reed McDonald, or sent to Campus Mail
Stop 1111.
Supreme Court upholds law banning gun sales
fter years of debate
and legal challenges, the U.S. Supreme
Court has put to rest the question of
private citizens buying machine guns.
By refusing to hear a challenge to the
1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act
brought about by a machine-gun
manufacturer, the Supreme Court
affirmed the constitutionality of the law
which banned the sale of new, fully
automatic weapons.
As one might guess, this was a major
setback for the National Rifle
Association — an interest group more
concerned with the right to own a
machine gun than a rifle. The rifle
association had made the reversal of
this law a top priority.
The Court's ruling is indicative that
the NRA's political power is at long last
on the wane. This should come as good
news to police officers and drug-
enforcement agents who supported the
1986 law. In the past, the NRA lobbied
Patrick
Nolan
Columnist
intensely against the ban of so-called
"cop killer" bullets which are Teflon
tipped and designed specifically to
penetrate bullet-proof vests.
Using the illogical argument that a
government ban of specific weapons
violates the constitutional rights of
individuals, the NRA has been
opposed to any and all limitations of
gun ownership imposed by
governments at every level.
So the Supreme Court's action
Monday was welcome news to those
lawmakers interested in bringing
sensibility to the possession of
weapons designed specifically to kill
many individuals with one squeeze of
the trigger.
The 1986 Firearms Owners
Protection Act was designed to curtail
the growing number of fully automatic
weapons that are better suited for the
deserts of Saudi Arabia than the hill
country of South Texas.
Yet there are those misguided
individuals who insist the Second
Amendment gives everyone the right
to possess whatever type of firearm
they desire — machine guns included.
The purpose of the 1986 law was not
an attempt to remove guns from the
hands ofiaw-abiding Americans; the
idea of citizens owning a gun is older
than this nation itself and undoubtedly
will continue.
The stereotypical view of gun control
— as projected oy pro-gun interest
groups — which advocates lobbying
for laws banning gun possession
outright, is nonsense.
There are few advocates of gun
control who call for the total ban of
f ans in the hands of private citizens,
et there definitely is a need for the
s one might guess, this was
a major setback for the National
Rifle Association — an interest
group more concerned with the
right to own a machine gun than
a rifle. The Court's ruling is
indicative that the NRA's
political power is at long last on
the wane. ^
government to control the sale and
possession of certain weapons that
have no purpose besides injuring or
killing numerous people in one burst of
gunfire.
There has never been, and most
likely never will be, a convincing
argument for a private individual to
possess a firearm that can discharge
several rounds per second.
The reasoning for the sale.
possession and use of shotguns, pistols
and semi-automatic rifles is, however,
sensible. There is the hunter who
needs to assert his or her dominance
over animals, homeowners who want
to protect their family from life-
threatening intruders and the
sportsman who enjoys skeet or trap
snooting. All are considered by the
majority of Americans as a legitimate
use of firearms.
What would an individual need or
want from a fully automatic weapon
that isn't provided by weapons
currently available?
It's a moot point now that the
nation's highest court has come down
on the side of public safety and ignored
the absurd pleas of the NRA and
machine-gun enthusiasts who must
now learn to be content in their
passions for guns within the limits of
the law.
Patrick Nolan is a senior political
science major.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Lisa Ann Robertson,
Editor
Kathy Cox, Managing Editor
J ennifer J effus,
Opinion Page Editor
Chris Vaughn, City Editor
Keith Sartin,
Richard Tijerina,
News Editors
Alan Lehmann, Sports Editor
Fredrick D. Joe, Art Director
Kristin North,
Lifestyles Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-sup
porting newspaper operated as a commu
nity service to Texas A&M and Bryan-
College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion
are those of the editorial board or the au
thor, and do not necessarily represent the
opinions of Texas A&M administrators,
faculty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion is published daily, except
Saturday, Sunday, holidays, exam peri
ods, and when school is not in session dur
ing fall and spring' semesters; publication
is Tuesday through Friday during the
summer session. Newsroom: 845-3313.
Mail subscriptions are $20 per semes
ter, $40 per school year and $50 per full
year: 845-2611. Advertising rates fur
nished on request: 845-2696.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed
McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col
lege Station, TX 77843-1111.
Second class postage paid at College
Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes
to The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald,
Texas A&M University, College Station
TX 77843-4111.