2
Opinion
Wednesday, January 23, 1991
Protesters miss point with 'loaded rhetoric'
A
lot of Americans suddenly
have found themselves citizens of a
country that is fighting a war they don't
believe in. We see them protesting on
T.V., we read their letters in The Batt,
we see their T-shirts on campus.
It's a wonderful thing in the United
States; we have the right to protest the
actions of our government and try to
convince our fellow citizens and
representatives to change the system.
It's great to see that so many people
care enough about this war of dubious
origins to speak out against it. But
while these people are protesting a war
that certainly deserves to be protested,
too many protesters are shooting
themselves in the feet with loaded
rhetoric.
"No blood for oil" is a catchy enough
phrase, and, while simplistic, expresses
the belief of protesters that the United
States has gone to war and is ending the
lives of its young people merely to
protect its foreign oil supply and
economy. But "peace at any price?" Oh,
come on.
The idea that nothing is important
enough to fight for is ludicrous. We're
part of a nation of freedom, not com
plete freedom, but we have a lot more
than some people. We may tend to
forget that there are much harsher
governments out there, and there are a
lot of places where the people have
very little power.
I like the United States, and the
freedoms I am afforded by being a
citizen here. I'm not saying it couldn't
use some improvement, but what
couldn't? The absolute last thing I
would want is for the United States to
totally disband its defenses.
If the United States put down all its
guns tomorrow and announced it was
becoming a pacifist nation, it wouldn't
be a week before every country that
owned a weapon had descended on us
and parted us out like an old Chevy.
There just aren't pacifist nations. Not
even the Swiss are pacifists -- they're
just neutral. Every country has taken
precautions to protect its citizens with a
military.
And the idea that we should just leave
everyone alone and defend only
ourselves seems a bit ridiculous.
There's the recently over-used ex
ample of Hitler's extermination of the
Jews — we couldn't just sit back and let
that happen, and there was no way to
stop it except by force. It 7 s true eco
nomic sanctions can be very effective;
and in fact, they might have been
effective averting our current war. But
they just won't always work, and as
human beings we have a hard time
letting a powerful government perpe
trate crimes upon its citizens.
Force is sometimes the only answer.
But perhaps not this time. The war
protesters have good ideas, and they
need to be heard. The protesters
remind us that we're sending
soldiers to die to protect
our economy, an
economy not so much
threatened by the
invasion of Kuwait
but by the attack on
Saudi Arabia — an
attack that did not
happen until after
Iraq already had been
attacked by the United
States. They remind us
that economic sanctions or
a stronger showing of will
ingness to use force from combined
allies might have caused Saddam
Hussein to back down, but the United
States wouldn't wait and rushed into
battle.
They remind us that the same presi
dent who so wants to punish Iraq for
breaking international law was the
same president who sent troops into
Panama last year and knowingly broke
international law. They remind
us that if we feel we don't
want this the war, we
must speak out and
try to end it.
But protesters who
taint their argu
ments with the
ludicrous "peace-
at-any-price"
argument lose the
respect of other
citizens who might be
convinced to speak out
against the war, and they
dilute arguments of more
realistic, less-idealistic protesters who
argue real war issues — the issues that
might bring an end to a war that
shouldn't have started.
Hobbs is a senior journalism major.
U.S. joins war to stop
violence, not to get oil
TUE RKCRP
NEW J6F66Y
Mail Call
Remember lessons of history
EDITOR:
The Battalion Editorial Board asked for one reason why
we should wage war on Iraq. May I give 14 million reasons?
I believe the reason we are required to take history courses
is to learn the tragic mistakes of history and not repeat
them.
The recurrent parallelism between post-\var Germany
and Iraq ring an eerie bell of present pasts. Both countries
were led by ruthless dictators with visions of uniting their
respective motherlands. Both were composed of a fanati
cally nationalistic populace with a deep hatred for the Jews.
Both had regional military superiority, and were recovering
from economic failure.
When Hitler invaded the Rhine, he gained two major
victories: he restored the pride of a beaten Germany, and he
won appeasement from Europe and America. The Euro
peans responded with dialogue for peace and America with
isolationism from a situation so far away. 1
As we look with hindsight at Hitlers' march into the
Rhine, we realize World War II would have been averted by
a devastating attack by Britain and France on Hitler's army.
Because such a strike would have cost thousands of lives,
the peace marchers clamored to give peace a chance — "No
war for wine." The pacifists won, and there was no military
strike, as a result, Japan and Italy learned the lesson of giv
ing peace a chance and more than 14 million died during
World War II.
If Saddam had invaded Kuwait with no allied response,
he would have gained three important victories: The restor
ation of pride to a beaten Iraq, the appeasement of the
world and the oil of Kuwait. Yes, this war is about oil. Not
necessarily our economic dependence on oil, but rather Sad
dam's use of the conquered Kuwaiti oil.
With the oil of Kuwait he could continue to increase his
intimidation if OPEC got higher prices. With these monies
Saddam would have built an arsenal and army more deadly
than Hitler's army. And most important he would have
been able to buy the nuclear-weapons technology and de
structive power he wants.
Here we are again. A madman annexing a country to the
"motherland" with his sights on a kingdom. The pacifists
cry "no war for oil" and "Kuwait is so far away" as they
clamor for peace. Will we learn from history? Is Dec. 7, 1941,
a day that lived in infamy? Or will 14 million more people
die because we are not willing to give war a chance?
Kevin Davis '93
JL he Marine recruiter looked
at me steadily over our third or fourth
Crown and Coke and said in a voice
that told of the anguish he felt for what
he had to say: "What you people fail to
realize is what 'oil' really is."
Oil, he went on to tell me, is not
simply the cheap, inefficient fuel
source destroying our environment.
Rather, it is something much more
important than most Americans care to
admit.
It takes us to and from our jobs,
lights our homes and offices — it is the
very center of our mobility, comfort
and entertainment. Oil creates and
reinforces more jobs than any other
single commodity in America.
Imagine a modfern America without
cars, electricity or tractors to plow our
fields and factories to employ our
middle class. Oil means jobs. Oil is our
living room on a Friday night doing
whatever the hell we want to do.
I said that's all well and good, but
what about alternative fuel sources? As
an avid environmentalist, I knew the
burning of fossil fuels coupled with
deforestation had all but caused the
Greenhouse effect, not to mention the
carbon monoxide pollution which
poisoned the very air we breathe.
Then I realized what a massive and
long undertaking it would be to
convert our needs to alternative fuels.
Not only that, but the conversion
would require oil.
In addition, the oil industry has had
power for so long that ousting it in
favor of more logical resources
promises to be a long, drawn out and
highly political process.
No, this was no alternative. I began
to get depressed as other realizations
began falling into place. But my
arguments were not yet spent. I am a
pacifist, I said. There must be a
peaceful solution!
What if Saddam Hussein would
agree to a conditional release of
Kuwait? Had our inflexible no-
nonsense approach to diplomacy
closed doors on compromises which
would have provided alternatives to
bloodshed? Any person with an ounce
of sanity surely realized the
implications of a war with a nuclear
and chemical potential and with a
person like-Saddam Hussein. Surely
any solution besides the loss of
innocent lives was a good solution.
I noticed the old Marine's sad silence
and I continued. "There's no such
thing as winning a war," I said. "Don't
you see?"
I paused as if daring him to rebut my
emotional display, then continued:
"They could arag me to the front line,
but they could never make me pull the
trigger!"
At this I stopped noting the growing
consternation in his eyes. "Are you
* 1. In •* '
through?" he asked. I nodded
curiously. "Do you even know what a
pacifist is? A true pacifist would never
lift a hand of aggression, even in his
own defense, or the defense of his
loved ones," he said.
I started to object, but he silenced
me. He said the point is if a man with a
gun came into your house and pointed
a gun at your family, if it was in your
power to stop him, and stop him
forcefully — you could and would.
My answer was obvious: Saddam
was not in my living room.
Ammnesty International has
published an interesting report
described on CNN. From descriptions!
have heard, the report tells of the
slaughter of Kuwaitis that refuse to
display a portrait of Saddam in their
homes.
It tells of the widespread plunder
and destruction of what were once
homes.
Saddam Hussein has promised time
and time again to destroy the evil
empire. The United States is the evil
empire to which he is referring. By
seizing our oil, the proven present
cornerstone of our not-so-perfect
economy; he has come into our home.
He has drawn his gun and aimed it. We
have the power to stop him.
This is not the time to complain
about those things which cannot be
changed. Oil is not the issue, it is
merely a cloud which conveniently
shrouds a much larger picture. This
war is not an unnecessary act of
American aggression — it is a human
response to a violent confrontation.
I know that I cannot change people,
were I to try I would fail. I ask only that
you listen, think and consider every
implication of what you are asking for
when you blindly ask for peace.
Ett/oe is a freshman psychology 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
Jennifer Jeff us,
Opinion Page Editor
Chris Vaughn, City Editor
Keith Sartin,
Richard Tijerina,
News Editors
Alan Lehmann, Sports Editor
Fredrick D. Joe, Art Director
Kristin North,
Life Style Editor
ditoi ’ al Policy
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.
the itch
MRS.Moles, you akF
CONSIDERED THE FASTEST
xburree jn t^e unitep
I WOULD SAY IT'S iust a
MATTER OF PKAcrtCt. T
KM IT AM OP zoHoues
DAY--- X EVEN HAD THIS
CHAIR TUPMEP 1NTO A SMALL.
TOIEET. AMOX DON'T
" TA\ce STEflOipS,
by Nito