2
Opinion
Tuesday, February 12,1991
The Battalion
Opinion Page Editor
Jennifer Jeffus
845-3314
© m\ THE RtCORP
Clearing up confusion about Iraq
Economic sanctions working
5,
JL n her column on Feb
Alicia Riley said: "a person should
gather all the facts and make the best
decision." Unfortunately, she
presented us with very few facts, a lot
of misleading information and, in some
cases, outright falsehoods.
She said "sanctions were having no
effect nor would they ever have had an
effect on Iraq." In the New York Times
of Jan. 14, the Institute for International
Economics reported that Iraq's GNP
had fallen by 48 percent since August.
This figure cannot be completely
confirmed, but a GNP drop of even half
that amount would be a major "effect."
Riley said that leaks in the embargo
were making the sanctions ineffective,
though she offered no evidence to
support this claim.
Secretary of Defense Cheney told
Congress in early December that minor
leaks were occurring but that "in terms
of major international commerce, we
think we've been able to pretty well dry
that up."
The precipitous decline in Iraq's
GNP and Cheney's remarks indicate
this was one of the most effective uses
of sanctions ever.
Riley said, "our government is not
dealing with a sane and rational man.
Hussein turned on his own people
with nerve gas." April Glaspie, U.S.
ambassador to Iraq, dealt with Hussein
as a sane and rational man on July 25,
1990.
She told him: "We have no opinion
on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your
border disagreement with Kuwait...
James Baker has directed our official
spokesman to emphasize this
instruction."
The U.S. State Department does not
dispute this transcript offered in the
Washington Post of Sept. 13,1990.
Hussein gassed the Kurds in 1988. In
1989, the Bush Administration
authorized the sale of $60 million worth
of commodities with military
applications, including "computers,
computing equipment and avionics
equipment and aircraft," according to
Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly,
in testimony before Congress on April
26, 1990.
Hussein is a calculating dictator who
built up one of the worst human rights
records on earth while the United
Faith
Short
Reader’s Opinion
States supported him. As late as 1989,
after the gassing of the Kurds,
Congress sought to cut off the sale of
military equipment to Iraq, but the
Bush Administration resisted.
Many people have been questioning
this policy of arming men who are later
labeled insane and irrational — and
who must be deposed by the loss of
American life.
Riley said, "after the annihilation of
thousands of people, the protesters
would've asked our government, 'Why
didn't you take action sooner?' "
Thousands were annihilated in the
1980s due to Iraqi aggression.
I am asking right now: Why didn't
the government take action sooner to
keep us from dying and killing in the
Middle East? Why does the United
States have a policy of selectively
tolerating and supporting such
aggression?
Riley also misrepresented the histoiy
of World War II when she blamed
sustained U.S. neutrality for the
Holocaust.
"The United States was neutral until
Hitler occupied most of Europe."
Before the bombing of Pearl Harbor,
the United States was neutral only
insofar as we did not send soldiers to
fight.
We supplied huge quantities of arms
to the allies under the "cash-and-carry"
program and the Lend-Lease Act prior
to entering the war. These arms
sustained Britain and the Soviet Union
in their battle against Germany during
1940 and 1941.
Considering this crucial support for
the Allies, it hardly seems accurate to
say, "Today, the United States is
mostly blamed for the Holocaust
because we did wait and allow these
abominable acts to go on." I blame
fascism for the Holocaust.
In regard to the more immediate
past, Riley said that Bush, Baker,
Gorbachev, Mitterand and Perez de
Cuellar "all visited or talked with
Hussein to persuade him into a
peaceful resolution." I can find nothing
to indicate that any of those named,
except Perez de Cuellar, actually
visited or talked directly with Hussein.
She also said that "troops gradually
were being sent to the gulf to prepare
for the Jan. 15 deadline."
Bush's decision to increase the
number of deployed troops by 200,000
— for a total of 430,000 troops — came
on Nov. 8. This decision was made
three weeks before the U.N. resolution
of Nov. 29 allowing the use of force
after Jan. 15.
Bush made his decision to prepare
for an offensive independently of the
U.N. resolution allowing such action.
Bush stated that the United States
would not be bound by the United
Nations if the United Nations did not
authorize the use of force. His pre
resolution November troop increase
backs this statement.
Riley correctly pointed out that
"presidents in the past did not look to
Congress before acting. Bush did." If
Riley was referring to Vietnam, it's
important to know that President
Johnson had congressional support for
escalation — in the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution — that dwarfed the near 50-
SO split over supporting Bush's military
action in the Middle East.
Yes, Bush got congressional
approval. However, according to the
Washington Post on Jan. 8, "Bush has
maintained he has authority to use
force without a declaration of war by
Congress and without any explicity
authorization."
This hardly amounts to an assurance
that Bush would have been guided by
the decision of our representatives in
Congress if they had not supported his
policy.
Riley's misrepresentations not only
of our history but also of our immediate
past is deceptive. Such deception is
particularly dangerous when we are
engaged in war.
Every individual cannot gather all
the facts, but we each have a
responsibility to present whatever
information we do have accurately. It
undermines our exchange of ideas
when "the facts" are incorrect.
Faith Short is a Texas A&Memployee.
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
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.
the itch
—■
include name,
to edit letters f
appearing. There k, however, no :
welcomes all letters to die editor, Please
on all letters. The editor reserves the right
letters have a better chance of
appear. Letters may be brought to 216 Reed
Are other species less worthy than man?
EDITOR:
Occasionally, an opinion will appear in The Battalion which seems as if it
were written by someone from another planet. Normally one would simply
disregard such a piece and continue. However, Tim Truesdale's column in
the Jan. 31 issue is so ill-considered that it requires a response. His argument
against all animal testing by pharmaceutical companies rests on two points.
First, that it is immoral to perform these tests on animals because man has no
right to subject other beings to his control. Second, that computer modeling
of a drug's safety and effectiveness renders animal tests obsolete.
The former point is clearly flawed. The most serious defect is the implica
tion that man is morally no more deserving of life or quality of life than other
animals. The animal-rights fanatic would say that to believe otherwise is "spe-
cieism.
Of course it is! Man is fundamentally different than other animals in his
ability to display individualism, to be capable of independent thought, to
ponder his own existence and in other qualities.
If it is morally wrong to consider other species of animals as less worthy
than your own, then why isn't it just as wrong to consider other genera, other
phylums, the plant kingdom, even viruses and bacteria as inferior? Who is to
say that neither plants nor bacteria aren't sentient beings? We're just being
"kingdom-centric" by not admitting so.
The second point is also faulty. While there have been and continue to be
great advances in computer modeling, the truth is that even the best systems
can't reliably predict all of the important biological effects of a chemical. A
good case in point is the potential anti-cancer agent CC-1065. During the ini
tial clinical trials on mice, a totally unexpected delayed toxicity response re
sulting in the deaths of all of the animals appeared.
If the testing had been limited to computer modeling, imagine how many
people might have been injured or killed by this unforeseen complication.
As the saying goes, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open
one's mouth and remove all doubt." We can only hope Truesdale considers
such advice in the future before deciding to subject us to his philosophy.
Peter Klimko
graduate student
Power means responsibility
EDITOR:
This is in response to responses to B. Jon Traylor's letter in the Feb. 4 issue
of The Battalion. The hypocrisy I see in some of these letters is nothing short
of amazing. Of the three responses I've seen, one goes as far as to say that our
forefathers "would roll in their graves over the narrow-mindedness" of Tray
lor's letter. Webster's New World Dictionary defines narrow-minded as "li
mited in outlook or lacking in tolerance." Well, these three letters are, by defi
nition, guilty of the same thing.
One letter asks "who are you to put (protesters) down" if they believe pro
tests will work? But who is the letter writer to put down someone with a view
different than his own? Another letter implies (or appears to imply) that intol
erance will destroy this country. Does intolerance in one person justify it in
yourself?
The self-contradiction in these letters is disturbing, to say the least.
Dwight Barry made some good points about disagreeing with the govern
ment. However, I cannot blame the government in their handling of this situ
ation.
A dictator forcefully takes a smaller country, claiming it as his by right.
The rightful rulers of the country make an appeal for help. This situation has
occurred once before, about 50 years ago. Rather than tackle the aggressor
early when he was vulnerable, the world powers gave him all he demanded.
"Peace in our time" British Prime Minister Chamberlain called it. Failure to act
led to one of the most devastating wars in world history.
We must learn from our past mistakes. There are some who believe that
we have no business interfering, as we should have done then. 1 believe dif
ferently. Ours is one of the most powerful countries in the world. With this
power, there is also a responsibility. We cannot sit idly by and let Hussein
take any country he feels like.
Peace in our time will not occur if we allow Hussein freedom to conquer
his neighbors and justify it with "he's so far away ... he can't affect us."
David Hill '93
Bring back TAX'
EDITOR:
I have been disappointed in your choices of Editorial Page comic strips.
"FAX," the summer strip, was a good one. But in the fall, you replaced it with
Don Atkinson Jr.'s strip, which had its funny moments and was most often
tasteful.
Now to my horror, I realize that the comic strip you've chosen for the
spring is this tacky one by Nito. Its first problem is that it is not even humor
ous. Its second problem is that it is utterly tasteless, and often offensive.
My plea is that you give us a tasteful comic strip, and even preferrably one
that will make us laugh. My first choice is "FAX," but if you can't get "FAX"
back, please get rid of Nito and bring in someone else.
In response to the letter from Paul Fierro (Jan. 28) where he made the
statement "It takes a mature mind to be able to laugh at our society's darker
side and still realize the gravity of such 'real problems.' " However, it takes
a truly mature mind to realize the "gravity of such 'real problems' " is no
laughing matter. How far can you open your mind before your brain falls
out?
Adrienne Elliotte '91
SOAtgViMrS JT W0 IPA/UAAJ CAM RFACH
BflU6HreA/Mevr by corajAil pbars
ANA pF£]Vlt2/Al£ THOUGH TS, 4^/> 6 r THFaj,
&IA/AV WITH TH(F HFOtojartC
too
\$TOlC, WHO J&AJOVJS.,.
by Nito
.ufCti vJte THtF
tTr TM^oo Are
/vr SSISA ?
Grc
coni
ByT
Th
Free condo
be distributed
the A.P. Beut
form Texas
sexually Iran
birth control.
“We just \\
aware of the i
Andrea Besh:
ucation coord
Thursday i
Day but also
National Con
week-long efi
about condon
Beshara sa;
fold purpos<
spread of se:
eases and to
method.
Alpha Phi
sponsoring (
handing out
doms, says Si
man for Cone
Condoms
handouts ant
tween 10 a.i
Quadrangle,
and southsidt
“We have
(sexually tran
phlets on A1
Hous<
to aiu
AUSTIN
ing considert
Gib Lewis sai
But alter:
local propert
poor school c
“It’s not £
be able to sell
A statewi
dally was bai
preme Court
However
opposed the
“It is not
Lt. Gov.
tax is dead.
“I don’t i
there’s been
my knowled{
5