Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 5, 1991)
1 2 Opinion Tuesday, March 5,1991 The Battalion Opinion Page Editor Jennifer Jeffus 845-3314 vmJU moV 0 UJrji iMvaac coumWvcs . uavR udt OdokWI&s . ga^tl 4^Kl' <i. Mail Call The Battalion is interested in hearing from its readers and welcomes all letters to the editor. Please include name, classification, address and phone num ber on all letters. The e<8tor reserves the right to edit letters for style and length. Because of limited space, shorter letters have a better chance of appearing. There is, however, no guarantee letters win appear. Letters may be brought to 216 Reed McDonald or sent to Campus MaO Stop 1111. A nice gesture taken too far EDITOR: I would like to respond to both the editorial by the Bat talion Editorial Board which appeared in the Feb. 28 issue of The Battalion concerning the 38-mile ribbon and the re sponse by John Ansbach which appeared March 1. Concerning the editorial, I must agree with the Edito rial Board's sentiments on the ribbon affair being a nice gesture taken too far. Although I support the troops as well as their wives, children and husbands who remained at home, I cannot say that I support such an incredibly overdone and wasteful display. Ansbach finds it interesting that although CNN finds the ribbon affair "newsworthy," "the famed Battalion finds it trivial." What he does not seem to understand is that while something may be newsworthy, that does not imply that it is tasteful. A story about a greased pig contest comes to mind. It seems to me that the community's support for the troops could have been expressed in more thoughtful ways. A picnic in the park in honor of veteran's groups in town or maybe some sort of "gifts from home" drive — the sending of small CARE-like packages to the troops from Bryan-College Station — would have shown support as well, maybe even more so than the barely visible yellow ribbon that was placed around campus and the commu nity. Ansbach's response seems a little hostile as well. He does not seem to understand that editorials are just the opinions of the Editorial Board and nothing more, just as the letters in Mail Call are the opinions of the authors of those letters and nothing more. There seems to be so much hostility these days. It's de- pressingly monotonous, I don't know, maybe I'll go crack open the Guinness Book of World Records and try to guess where the ribbon affair will appear, between the World's Longest Hotdog and the World's Biggest Taco maybe? Hmm, wait a minute, I think instead I'll go and try to take the yellow ribbon out of my fence where the wind blew it. Adolfo Garza '91 Troops need American support EDITOR: This letter is in response to the very small group of anti war protesters who hold signs reading: "War is the Ene- my. This group has appeared at most of the rallies which support the troops. These rallies consist of families and friends of the troops still stationed in or departing for the Persian Gulf. Our rallies are not "supporting the war" but "support ing the troops." This support is an incredible morale booster for the troops and when they come home, they will know they fought for a country that loves them. Saddam is a madman, and a madman is not peace-lov ing. Your efforts for peace are understandable, but your tactics are all wrong. If Saddam was a raging bull and run ning fiercely toward you, would you try and have a peace able chat? No. There is no way to stop a raging bull by peace and Saddam was past negotiation. The next time you anti-war demonstrators feel you are supporting the lives of the men and women in the gulf, as you say you are, why not step back and hold your signs elsewhere. I love my brother, who has been in the gulf for six months, and I hope that he never finds out about your group. He needs all the support we Americans can give him, and your tactics are less than honorable. Jill Gardner '91 Ribbon shows love for soldiers EDITOR: The Battalion Editorial Board, in its Feb. 28 editorial, stated that the 31-mile yellow ribbon around B-CS "trivia lizes the reality of war." Puh-lease!! First, a show of support of this magnitude is only fitting for the young men and women in the gulf. How can their be any "overkill" as you put it when people are giving their lives in this conflict? Second, what the heck do you know about the realities of war? My brother, a U.S. Marine (and many others like him) has not seen electricity since August. He sleeps on the ground and doesn't shower for weeks at a time. He even hiked three hours through the desert to place a three min ute phone call to his sister for what he believed might have been the last time. That's reality. Think about that the next time you slide into your easy chair after a long hot shower to watch TV and criticize the war and the activities of the people who support their friends and family in the gulf• Last, it was actually the families of the troops, the last group of people who would "trivialize" the war, that put this event together. It is not meant as a frivolous activity but simply a way of displaying our love, respect and support for each and every soldier. Cheryl Middlebrooks '91 accompanied by 61 signatures The second coming of the Cold War? JL he Iraqi Conflict has — with the exception of Mikhail Gorbachev's short-lived "peace initiative" — removed the spotlight of global attention from the Soviet Union and given the Soviets virtual carte blanche in dealing with their domestic problems and the Baltic States. The silence and tacit support of the Soviet leadership for our policy in the Persian Gulf has come at an incredibly high price for the United States — our silence. This could in turn lead to the return of the most silent time in our history — the Cold War. While world attention has been focused on Iraq, the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner has sent troops into independence-minded Baltic republics to "restore order," killing or wounding almost 400 freedom-loving Lithuanians in the process. The Chinese massacre at Tiananmen Square was at least the target of a respectable amount of negative rhetoric from Washington. Any criticism of our new buddy Gorbachev, however, who was cited by the Nobel Committee for his "leading role in the peace process," is now likely to bring about Gorbasmic convulsions from his fan club in Mikhail Gorbachev Washington and across the Western world. The trappings of glasnost and perestroika are beginning to unravel, and with them any Western hopes of a free and democratic Soviet Union. Events speak louder than words, and an anthology of governmental actions is convincing evidence that a second Cold War is dangerously close to beginning. Gorbachev told Time Magazine last June, during an interview associated with his being named Time's Man of the Decade that: "I am now, just as I've always been, a convinced Communist." Like all good Communists who find themselves backed into a corner, Gorby has not hesitated to crack down on those who pose a threat to his longevity. Murdering peaceful protesters was only one of the tactics used in the last six months to consolidate his hold on power. On Nov. 27, Gorby authorized the Soviet military to use force if harassed, to commandeer water, power and food, and to prevent the desecration of military monuments (statues of Stalin have been hitting the ground with delightful regularity). On Dec. 1, Gorbachev issued a decree which declared null and void all laws passed by the republics which might threaten Soviet defense capabilities. Within the government, Stanislaw Stalin (the author of the 500 day plan to convert the Soviet Union to a market economy) has been forced from office. Gorbachev has been busy over the last few months, purging reformers from the party ranks and replacing them with hard liners. Leading reformers including Interior Minister Vadim Bakatin, Aleksandr Yakovlev, Nikolai Petrakov and of course Eduard Schevardnadze have all either resigned or been forced out of office. We should have listened to Andrei Gromyko who, during his nominating speech for Gorbachev before the Soviet leadership, spoke of the president's "broad smile but teeth of steel." Independent commentators are gone now from Soviet television, sharing the fate of Gorbachev's reformist advisers. Russian President Boris Yeltsin, one of a very few surviving reformers in Soviet government, warns that: "Neither domestic nor foreign policy has undergone changes." The Economist agrees, stating that Gorbachev has chosen "order over law." Militarily, the Soviets have launched another nuclear submarine every seven weeks since the first Cold War ended. All this is occurring while Gorbachev's popularity rivals that of George Bush and sex back in the good old USA. One of the most interesting commentaries on Soviet intentions was revealed in a speech given by Demitri Manuilski, speaking on the Communist philosophy of negotiation at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow. He said: "War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 or 30 years. To win we shall need the elememt of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep, so we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalistic countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down we shall smash them with our clenched fists." This speech was given in 1931. Unless our government begins to exert more pressure on the Soviet leadership and vocally support the reformers within that country, we may get to find out whether Manuilski was a modern day Nostradamus or just an optimistic Leninist. In the meantime, Gorbachev will continue to maintain an illusion of reform until Westerners pay heed to what is happening in the Soviet Union. The results of this realization will either be genuine reform within the borders of the former "Evil Empire" — or a second Great Chill between the world's superpowers. Larry Cox is a graduate student in range science. 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 periods and when school is not in session during fall and spring semesters; publication is Tuesday through Friday during the sum mer 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 77843-1 111. 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 install THE TA/.f AR? YOU SVR& it's THZSAMEj OB'ah ? Sc ai to Lav reqi AUST of fornu Rains to : ment of jetted Me Rains, ally of ft had serv< August, vote. But ers said tl ing at th new man: Rains vote. In a pi ton, Ran backing i cratic set tremendt Sen. ( said he c agency’s Ann Riel to put he 'That badly tro ership,” 1 “Sadly have seer disclosed (Richard: ments sh< In reo executive lawmaket private ti office sp; at Corns quarters. Richar for spent than a di Germany ftce there And o [roller tx while fe looking is ing mone Hist Prof. Ar Prof. F