Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 2, 1992)
> A ! _ c h 2,199; s Outlaw or ave a real / who had ■ebounds, rebounds run which e. pcond half v" Ander- ?bounded ; o the mo- ito their chance to “cond half. Jt to eight ne. Chuck 1 ball over ^ars even- ee throws es get any 'ercent of ding 19 of ictory. rcentages aid.. "The at some going to we strug- ites of the ’as the dif- ection im- cM hit 56 nd 58 per- ange. ooting 43 1 this sea- la ree-point •ting is a team." named his rveek, was ne with a ut it when said. "But basket), it g falling, the right s and just ch Tony 's attitude is success ,’ho comes / v anting to He shows ■thing bad ut and get ion a sur- )f produc- cen a sur- itude." *am hth e 5 "This could iatch, but the gutted it up play of Rid his singles iT)onald, 6T icd with Ben des match, is did every- Rick seemed lay." turday: illips lost to 6-4. ( Vlartinez lost te defeated ul 6-2,6-2. ens was do’ az, 6-4,4-6, d- liclas Lundin is swept thd Weaver over 3, 6-2. salou defeat- i 6-1,3-6,64. Paul Doman- datt Dabbs 6 Naumann ^ nie Gade d-ft )d White 6-1, iez beat eated Na u ed. [Monday, March 2, 1992 Opinion The Battalion Page 7 The Battalion Editorial Board DOUGLAS PILS, Editor-in-Chief BRIDGET HARROW, Managing Editor BRIAN BONEY, Opinion Editor JASON MORRIS, Night News Editor MORGAN JUDAY. Night News Editor MACK HARRISON, City Editor KARL STOLLEIS, Photo Editor SCOTT WUDEL, Sports Editor ROB NEWBERRY, Lifestyles Editor Persian Gulf War Should the United States have continued the Gulf War? PRO jr >. m ■ .. s — 1 Brian Michael Boney Sullivan In Iraq, Kurds and Shiites cower in terror, fearing the retribution of their government. United Nations inspectors, scouring the country to find nuclear production centers and weapons sights, are kept from examining and destroying the machines of Hussein's war. Iraqi children, sick from the most basic of human diseases, die painfully because they cannot acquire nourishment and medicine, all of which must be withheld by the international community to make sure Hussein's troops don't take the supplies to rebuild their army. This is what has become of our "new world order." Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the signing of the cease-fire papers halting the war in Iraq. The war fought to restore balance to the Middle East and to end "naked aggression" by Iraq has instead turned into a political victory for the leader we so desperately wanted to depose. The term phrase "kissing your sister," a term used by coaches to explain the psychological benefit of a tie game, applies best to this situation. The U.S. military and its coalition allies a year ago were routing the Iraqi military, the same organization that had invaded, pillaged and raped an almost defenseless neighbor. Yet at the time we were in position to wipe this force form the face of the Earth, we stopped, thereby letting a murderous thug to remain in charge of his ravaged country. The same situation occurred in 1941. The German Army had routed the Soviets at every battle. The Red Army, bloodied and broken, retreated into the country's vast interior. German generals looked with hungry anticipation at the uncontested path that lay ahead to the Soviet capital city of Moscow. With its fall, the Germans could knock one of the major Allied from the war, thereby securing Germany's hold on Europe. But Adolph Hitler d awdled, splitting forces, assigning units to secondary objectives. He never took Moscow. The Soviets recovered from their initial defeat to beat back the Germans. The same is in store for us. We had the opportunity to end the regime of one of the world's most hutal dictator's, yet we chose the side °f political stalemate. Hussein is still in power, licking his founds in preparation for a new Battle. A future battle against him or Bis followers will fought by our children because we didn't have the stomach to end his brutality when we Bad the chance. When the Saudis heard we were about to stop our onslaught, they Wer e aghast. When the Kuwaitis, their country torn apart, heard we were stopping some wept.America reverted 0 its modern past, ending a war it c °uld have won and leaving others to CON Boney is a senior education certification major March 3 marks the anniversary of the end of the so- called Gulf War, a conflict in which the United States once again proved itself a world leader. The U.S. Armed Forces reacted with a level of professionalism and dedication which has no equal in today's topsy-turvy world. The people of America united under common goals: to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, keep the supply of oil open and retain influence in the region— goals which were achieved quicklv and with relatively little loss of life. From that day nearly a year ago, on through today, a debate has raged: Should the Coalition forces have removed Hussein from power? The answer is not an easy one, with its basis found in the original United Nations mandate. When Saddam Hussein invaded the nation of Kuwait, the United Nations called upon him to remove his troops peacefully, or else. That "or else" meant the forceful removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. The purpose was to reinstate the rightful leader of Kuwait. Notice that the mandate called for the freeing of Kuwait and the restoration of its government. Nothing else. True, Hussein is a madman capable of who knows what. True also, he is a volatile unknown in an unstable region. And, true, he should not be the leader of anything, much less a sizable, potentially nuclear-capable nation. But it was not our place to remove him. The United States is a founding member of the United Nations, with a permanent seat on the Security Council. This grants our nation a great deal Of power, but power with responsibility. When the United Nations passes a mandate, and the United States agrees to be its enforcer, that mandate is the guiding principle, the law, of the conflict. If the United States and Coalition forces had taken the mandate a step further and removed Saddam Hussein from power, we would have been as guilty of breaking the law as Hussein himself. While it may well have been, and still be, in the best interest of all to remove Hussein, to do so would have been as wrong as what he did. The United States had the military might to remove Hussein and set up a government amicable to the United Nations and the United States. We still do. If the people of the United States want Hussein out of power, then let's declare war on Iraq and hit them with everything we have. But we can never confuse our policies as a nation and the mandates of the United Nations that we agree to uphold. For when we do, when we bully other countries while hiding behind a U.N. agreement, we will be as guilty as those like Hussein. Given all this, here is my answer: No, we should not have gone on into Baghdad and removed Hussein. Sullivan is a senior English major (gjj|) WIT POUj YES, I'M VOTIMG FOR PAT BUCHANAN TO MAKE A STATEN ENT/’ Shamir keeps and building and building and building'... November of my discontent Upcoming elections pose dilemma for lifelong conservative A ll three of my regular readers may be shocked at what they are about to read. They know that 1 have been a staunch Republican since before I was even born. Or I have been at least since I developed a sense of political consciousness sometime early in high school. To you three, who are not using the Battalion to protect yourselves from the driving rain of the Bryan- College Station monsoon season, 1 must admit that I will not be voting to re-elect George Bush this year. In fact, I have even considered voting for Paul Tsongas if he is nominated by the Democrats. His nomination, however, is not a likely scenario. Pro-business sentiments are not exactly a trademark of the Democratic party, as they conflict with the traditional role assigned business by liberals. In their twisted world, where the laws of sense no longer apply, one can tax the pants off of corporations to pay for entitlement programs, and, at the same time, blame the same businesses for laying off employees and turning them into more Democrats. However, this does not explain my discontent with President Bush. Notice that I did not claim to have lost my faith in principled conservatives. I just don't know if such people exist anymore. At one time, I was of the opinion that George was a conservative who stood for certain fundamental concepts. His actions (and certain episodes of inaction) have done much to dispel this belief. He undoubtedly has some principles left, but they seem to have been submerged in a miasma of pragmatism and political realities. Perhaps this is to be expected when one spends time amongst unsavory characters such as senators and representatives. Let's beat a dead horse and talk about "no new taxes", for example. This is a central tenet of the right- wing, anti-big government faith to which I suscribe, and to which Bush was once thought to adhere. Imagine the surprise and sense of betrayal which many conservatives felt at his repugnant compromise with a criminally incompetent legislative branch. In raising taxes, known in some disreputable circle^ ; as supplementing governmental revenue, he fed the proverbial canary to the proverbial cat, and even wiped the drool from its proverbial chin afterwards. The smile on that cat as it converted each additional dollar of revenue into $1.50 of additional spending must have been a sight to see. I imagine it as being something like the smile a defense lawyer gets after winning an acquittal on a technicality, the kind of smile that gives one the irresistible urge to remove his lips with a pair of pliers. Obviously, it is difficult to imagine how the most prominent Republican in the world could allow this to happen. President Bush's trip to Japan did very little to boost his standing in these jaded eyes. His retinue of American corporate leaders looked like a pack of whining brats clinging to daddy's pants leg and pointing out the bully who stole their GI Joe dolls. The Japanese prime minister's comment later to the effect that he had not made any hard and fast promises to buy more American cars pointed out the uselessness of the whole visit. Furthermore, Bush's claim that U.S. products were the best in the world, while sounding great tc blue-collar workers, was seen by others as the ridiculous propaganda that it is. If that were the case, there would be no need to enact protectionist trade measures except to save scarce landfill space from all the unwanted 300 Z's and Sony televisions. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, President Bush's insistence on granting most favored nation trade status to the murdering totalitarian regime in China is an inexplicable contradiction of our most basic political beliefs as Americans. The very heritage of the United States as a nation "conceived in liberty" demands that we avoid what amounts to an outright condonement of Beijing's brutal conduct. What makes Bush's position even more unbelievable is his recent statement in reference to Cuba, who, as we all know, has been a staunch defender of self-determination and human rights. President Bush said: "...we have absolutely no intention of agreeing to a normal relationship with a government that denies its people universally accepted civil and human rights, economic opportunity, and freedom of choice on matters that affect their own future." Apparently, this holds true for all nations except those whose names begin with a C and end with an A four letters later. What is a lifelong conservative to do? I can neither vote for Bush, nor can I stomach some of the extreme positions of Pat Buchanan (though at least he believes in something and is willing to stick to it). Somewhere, sometime I heard a saying that goes something like this: "A man who won't stand for something will stand for anything." This year, it looks like I I'll be standing for the Libertarians. Loughman is a senior journalism major Jason Loughman Mail Call Israeli diplay shows injustice On Monday and Tuesday of the International Week, I had the opportunity to visit the cultural displays of the International week. I helped set up the Egyptian booth and was privy to all that went on between the Palestinians and the Israeli occupants of Palestine. That is why I was not surprised to read the letter of Ms. Sernik on Thursday of that week. What the accounts of the lives of human beings like you and me in Palestine. And the 'literature' was not 'taken away' by the organizers. The Israelis are people who generate hate and they brought that hate with them to the International week. To me, as an Egyptian Muslim, the whole Israeli display was offensive. I am shocked and disgusted that the Israeli's have the audacity to claim that their 'culture' includes Muslims and Christians. Have we forgotten the meaning of Goyyim?! I am an Egyptian and I absolutely denounce Israel and the occupation of Palestine. No true Muslim Egyptian will ever say that the state of Israel had any legitimacy at all in the sight of God. If indeed the objective of the week was to learn about other cultures, then we have to realize that Palestinian culture today has, deeply engraved in it, the struggle of Palestinians against the Zionist Israeli occupation. No experience can claim to be unifying unless all its elements are based on justice, in the International Week, the Israelis were the embodiment of injustice. Hisham Moharram Graduate Student Have an opinion? Express it! The Battalion is interested in hearing from its readers. All letters to the editor are welcome. Letters must be signed and must include classification, address and a daytime phone number for verification purposes. Anonymous letters will not be published. The Battalion reserves the right to edit all letters for length, style and accuracy. There is no guarantee that letters will appear. Letters may be brought to 013 Reed McDonald, sent to Campus Mail Stop 1111 or can be faxed to 845-2647.