djowa uoiwnns isei aiooiiM am in namp>M qpaa min on
2 Opinion
Friday, January 25, 1991
The Battalion
Opinion Page Editor Jennifer Jeffus 845-3314
Bush administration
distorts history to justify war
C .
^ onsidering its own
history, is our current administration in
any position to express righteous
outrage at Kuwair s wrongful invasion
by Iraq?
George Bush presented the United
States as the champion of the United
Nations in his speech Wednesday. But
where was this driving desire to
uphold the United Nations when it
condemned the recent United States
invasion of Panama?
Keeping that in mind, let's consider
the following scenario.
Suppose our entire economy was
built on oil production, as was our
neighbor's economy.
Suppose we had formed a coalition
with these neighbors so we could
peacefully coexist and prosper with the
same economic base.
Suppose we had a neighbor country,
who in an effort to maximize its profits,
suddenly started breaking the
agreements of the coalition.
Suppose this had the effect of driving
the price of oil down to the detriment
of our economy and the economy of
other oil-producing countries.
Suppose this country violating the
agreement doesn't care if the price of
oil is low because they are increasing
their profits by selling more. Where are
they getting so much excess oil?
We discover they are drilling laterally
from their borders and getting oil from
stores belonging to the United States.
Considering the current
administrahon's willingness to use
military force, would Bush have
ordered an invasion?
He ordered the invasion of Panama
with far less justification.
Cara Shannon
Clark
Reader’s Opinion
Our administration wants us to
forget these were the exact events
leading to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. I
would prefer for us to remember only
the claim that Kuwait and Iraq were
once not separated by the current
British-drawn border. If we remember
only that, Saddam Hussein can be
portrayed as a madman and compared
to Hitler.
But, if we reach back further and
remember the whole chain of events
leading to the Iraqi invasion, Hussein
can be compared only to other cold,
rational national leaders all too willing
to spill innocent blood in the pursuit of
self-interest — such as George Bush.
I am beginning to feel like Winston
Smith in George Orwell's "1984." I'm
oing to have to start writing things
own as they happen. Then I canT be
deceived and manipulated by this
administration's distortion of the past.
That Americans could be depended
on to forget the position of the United
States toward the United Nations when
we invaded Panama such a short time
ago, that we could be depended on to
forget the events leading to Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait, allowing a Hitler
comparison as justification for this war,
scares me incredibly.
Bush's claim that "all reasonable
efforts to reach a peaceful resolution"
have been exhausted is preposterous.
Saddam Hussein was not given any
opportunity to leave without a loss of
face and a lack of recompensation for
Kuwait's theft of oil and violation of
contract.
It would have been better to have
dealt with Hussein through negotiation
than to deal with the atrocities that will
come with war.
The Bush administration is painting
this war as the pure and just defending
the innocent against the insanely
unjust.
When we objectively consider the
facts of this war and of the United
States actions under Bush, however.
we can see it only as the unjust
avenging injustices against the unjust
by the unjust.
Let's find a way to stop the killing
now, before another life is lost.
Cara Shannon Clark is a 1989 Texas
A&Mgraduate.
'A Modest Proposal'
to rid economic woes
Editor's Note: The following is a mod
ern-day revision of a satirical essay by
Jonathan Swift.
I move that we reinstate the institu
tion of slavery in this country. I'm not
talking about the subjugation of an en
tire race of people. That would be fla
grantly racist.
No, what I'm talking about is not ra
cially prejudice at all. We could take ev
eryone on welfare and auction them off
to the highest bidder.
This would probably solve two of our
nation's most pressing problems. First,
we could allocate more funds to more
worthwhile pursuits — for example,
protecting American business interests
that tangle with foreign governments.
Next, proceeds from the slave auction
would make a huge dent in the federal
budget deficit.
We no longer permit slave own
ership in this country because it is "im
moral." And why would the United
States seek to stop legislating morality
on the issue of slavery? This country
has a long history of adjusting its legal
code to fit current perceptions of moral
ity.
Of course, there's no reason to feel
guilty about adjusting moral codes,
since there is no such thing as universal
right or wrong. We now are enlight
ened enough to recognize that morality
is determined by culture "a la mode,"
and not by some omnipresent God.
The U.S. government passed, then
repealed, the prohibition of alcohol.
The government has called a de facto
in 1973. Now then, why is the abolition
of slavery "ripe" for judicial review and
repeal? Quite frankly, the right to life
— no I meant to say the right to free
dom — has been superceded by two
important points of morality in our so
ciety.
First, our government has become
poor — it can't afford to continue pay
ing increased amounts of borrowed
money to keep people alive. Second,
and perhaps more important, people
on welfare are "unwanted" by society.
Even if there were enough monetary
resources, there's just not enough emo
tional support to go around.
Obviously, as things change, our le
gal environment must change as well.
This is clearly a case in which it would
be more "responsible," and therefore
more "moral" to auction off the poor.
Due to our current circumstances, re
versing the abolition of slavery has be
come the "right" thing to do. We hold
these truths to be self-evident; that ev
ery man is created equal. Not for the
moment.
Tim Truesdale is a graduate student in
urban planning.
Mail Call
Tree protesters not radicals
EDITOR:
In Matt McBurnett's most recent column, he compared
those involved in the MSG expansion issue to anti-war pro
testers in San Francisco. I resent this analogy.
It seems if he is not personally interested in an issue, he
labels it "worthless" and accuses those who do feel it is im
portant of being "self-righteous morons."
He said he questions the motives of people who rallied
for the trees. In my mind, a few trees around the MSC were
beautiful and majestic old oaks, something to be treasured.
Rallying for them was not a hopeless or idealistic cause.
After all, this is my school, and 1 live on this campus.
Shouldn't student opinion have some impact?
The students, faculty and community members involved
weren't violent or radical. We didn't chain ourselves to
trees. We didn't block bridges!
We were protesting something that involved us, some
thing close to home. We were attempting to initiate change
by working with the A&M governing systems.
In the future, Mr. McBurnett, please be a little more con
scious of your analogies — get the facts straight.
There are many different types of protesters just as there
are many different types of journalists.
Kimberly Brown '93
A questionnaire for jingoes
EDITOR:
Just a few questions to hopefully set those in favor of
war with Iraq thinking for some good answers; There is no
particular order, so feel free to answer them in any way you
want, with the stipulation you consider each one thought
fully, intelligently and free of jingoism.
Why are we over there? What percentage of our oil actu
ally comes from Kuwait? If you are like Mr. Enloe, and pro
fess we are there "to stop a brutal, oppressive government J'
is this the only instance of brutality and oppression in recent
history? How long did Russian attacks on Afghanistan go
on? The oppression of an entire race of people in South Af
rica? Why does the United States support a government (El
Salvador) that kills its own citizens, a la Iraq? Why haven't
we acted prior to this? Is Ms. Hooper aware Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia are monarchies, that is to say dictatorships,
and that the "freedoms of all people" that we are suppos
edly fighting for never have existed in those countries?
What will happen after the war? Will the region become
a bunch of Americanophiles? What if Hussein surrenders
and lives? He's shown he's had the brass to stand up to the
West, and at the least will end up with just as much power
as before. Do you think he'll relinquish control of his gov
ernment? If he's killed, who's next in line? Probably some
one from his administration, right? Hasn't that region been
involved, for thousands of years, in territorial disputes? Is
rael hates Iraq, and wants him bad as we do, and is a mili
tary powerhouse — why not let them take care of Hussein?
OK, now an easy one. If you were in Saudi Arabia,
would you fight your own battles if you could to get some
other fools to fight them for you? Why can't we let them bat
tle it out, like we always have and buy our oil from Saudi
Arabia?
Iraq owed Kuwait 15 billion dollars; the land had been in
dispute for years; everybody (including President Bush)
saw this coming last January.
Has the United States run out of problems to solve in its
own land? Who would rather have "just" one soldier die in
exchange for gas that costs less than $ 1.25 a gallon?
This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue, although peo
ple are trying to turn it into one. If you can't answer
thoughtfully each and every question, then you can't justify
being in this war. I've tried, and I can't.
I don't know anyone who doesn't support our troops.
Every protester I know cares about our troops so much,
they don't want them to die needlesly. There is a difference
between supporting our troops and protesting our Presi
dent's policy. I hope everyone can keep this straight.
Ron Garza '91
Have an opinion? Express it!
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff re
serves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to main
tain 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.
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,
Life Style Editor
Editor!ol Policy
77 «> 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 by Nito