The Battalion
ISihursday • February 26, 1998
WORLD ORDER
Foolish games
)addam should be held accountable to agreement
F h
;
k. k
Donny
Ferguson
columnist
ool me
once,
shame
^•lyou. Fool me
rice, shame on
idii ij,”
When it comes
confronting
ie threat to glob-
security posed
'Iraqi dictator
top iddam Hussein,
11 Clinton
ems more like a
iddling grandmother than the
Dmmander-ln-Chief of the world’s
P® -emier military force.
For seven years, Saddam has
onewalled and blatantly defied
nited Nations’ demands he open
schemical weapons sites to U.N.
specters.
Rather than reply to Saddam’s
ppancy with proper force, Clinton
id U.N. Secretary-General Kofi An-
forged another “diplomatic so-
ition,” which Saddam will simply
— efy, as he does all others.
Make no mistake about it. Sad-
tn Hussein is no weak, ineffectual
espot. His regime possess vast
nounts of deadly chemical and bi-
logical weapons.
He has used them in the past
id will use them in the future, and
o amount of mealy-mouthed in-
mational negotiations will magi-
tllyopen up chemical weapons
tes locked tight for seven years,
addam Hussein poses a dangerous
ireatto the United States and his
lemical weapons capabilities
lust be dealt with immediately —
rtth full military force.
Saddam’s chemical weapons
^V) capabilities are appalling. Pri-
idel rtoitsApril 1993 discovery by U.N.
ispectors, one CW site in A1
iuthanna held 13,000 15 mm ar-
llery shells loaded with blistering
lustard gas, 6,200 nerve gas mis-
ies, 800 aerial bombs filled with
lerve gas, 60-70 tons of the nerve
aslaubun, 250 tons of mustard
as, 75 tons of the ultra-toxic nerve
as Sarin and the capability to pro-
uceVXgas, the most toxic chemi-
alweapon around.
Also in Saddam’s A1 Muthanna
irsenal were 28 SCUD missiles
aaded with Sarin. Remember, this
sjust one site. Countless others are
tattered around Iraq and hidden
romU.N. inspectors. Only Saddam
lussein and United States spy satel-
WORLD ORDER
] lites can pinpoint them all.
Not only does Saddam possess
these deadly weapons of mass de
struction, he has repeatedly used
chemical weapons against his
neighbors and even his own people.
During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq
border dispute, Iran lodged over a
dozen complaints with the United
Nations over Saddam’s frequent
use of banned chemical gasses, the
first such battlefield use of chemi
cal weapons since World War I.
Saddam has already launched
conventional SCUD missiles against
Israel, and has both the capability and
hatred of the Jewish state to launch a
CW assault. The United States should
be obligated to protect our Israeli al
lies from genocidal assault. Saddam
Hussein’s hatred of the Jewish people
should be reason enough to destroy
his military capabilities.
Saddam’s most viscous use of
banned CWs is against his own peo
ple. Kurds, who make £ip 15-20 per
cent of the Iraqi population, are fre
quently the victims of Saddam’s
genocidal gas attacks.
Classified documents indicate
Iraqi artillery batteries shelled the
Kurdish village of AlTannumah with
CWs, killing hundred of innocents.
If it were not for the fact the shells
were some of Iraq’s older ordnance,
many more Kurds would have died.
Other villages were not as lucky, as
Hussein’s genocidal impulses drive
the Kurds north and into Turkey.
Clearly, Saddam’s CW arsenal
and his will to use it against the
United States and Israel pose a se
rious threat to the prospects for
peace in the Gulf region. A real
president would have dealt with
Saddam’s CWs by now, as Reagan
did with Soviets in Grenada and
Bush did with the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait.
For Bill Clinton, however, swift
action in foreign affairs means get
ting a date with the Swedish ambas
sador after only one glass of wine.
Clinton should make this latest
agreement with the United Nations
Hussein’s final chance to give U.N.
inspectors full and total access to
his CW sites.
If he refuses inspection of sus
pect site, a GPS-guided Tomahawk
missile will make it a smoldering
hole in the ground. If Saddam
moves Sarin and VX gas mixtures to
hide them, a B-52 Stratofortress will
bomb his presidential palaces into
r
HI
IRAQ
aquarium gravel.
And if Saddam Hussein ever uses
chemical weapons against his peo
ple or the people of Israel, B-2
Stealths from Whiteman AFB will
make the short trip from Missouri to
drop a few GBU-24 BunkerBusters
into his living room.
Bill Clinton has allowed Sad
dam Hussein to toy with the Unit
ed States and the United Nations
long enough.
For the last seven years, Saddam
has violated inspections agree
ments, barred entry into suspected
CW by UN inspectors and contin
ued to manufacture his weapons of
mass destruction.
They have already been used
against his Iranian neighbors and
his own Kurdish people, and now
they threaten the United States and
Israel, our most important ally in
the Mideast.
If Saddam Hussein violates the
latest agreement with the Secretary
Annan and does not give unre
stricted and unlimited to any and
all of his suspected CW manufac
turing sites, President Clinton
should not hesitate to bomb Sad
dam into compliance with the will
of the global community.
Saddam has fooled us once. He
will not fool us again.
The time has come for Bill Clin
ton to make our intentions in Iraq
perfectly clear. We will not tolerate
Saddam’s defiance of weapons in
spections. We will not tolerate his
continued manufacturing of
chemical weapons. And we will not
tolerate the terrorist threat he pos
es to our national security and that
of Israel.
Any violation of agreements or
threat to a neighbor or his own peo
ple should be met with full, merci
less military force. A real President
would have done so by now.
Sheesh, I miss Reagan.
Donny Ferguson is a junior
political science major.
PERSPECTIVES
Beverly
Mireles
columnist
Mardi Gras falls
prey to trend of
Americanization
B eads, booze and bums. Nothing
says fun like Mardi Gras. At least,
that is what Mardi Gras is to us.
Mardi Gras is only one in a long line
of holiday traditions that have been
fully Americanized. What started out as
a last-minute party before a period of
fasting and self-denial has become an
all-out monument to hedonism.
But nowadays, what isn’t? Christmas
is for the mass accumulation of gifts (a
season of out-and-out gluttony that
gives glee to all retailers), Valentine’s
Day is for the giving of love in the form
of chocolates and St. Patrick’s Day and Mardi Gras are appar
ently for getting plastered in public.
It is all a little crazy, really. But most traditions tend to de
viate from their origins eventually. Bonfire started out around
a trash can and look at it now — every November people
come from every possible location to see hundreds of trees
being traditionally burned down to the ground, all in the
name of school spirit.
It isn’t just an A&M thing, it’s the American way. Each year
things have to be bigger, better, stronger and faster. If there
weren’t city ordinances, no doubt Ags would be determined
that Bonfire stand taller than the Sears Tower.
As traditions evolve, they don’t necessarily get worse, but
the focus tends to get lost in the midst of all the celebration.
Years ago, when Catholics started having small get togethers
to commemorate their last days before Lent, it is doubtful
they had in mind what happens every year in New Orleans
and Galveston, among other places.
What is this fascination of ours with making things
more extravagant than they already are? Improvements
are one thing, but you have to admit some things are just
getting ridiculous. Christmas is so big now that it starts the
day after Thanksgiving.
But hey, it’s cultural. Because we’re Americans, we have to
have the biggest and the best of everything. That is why Mar
di Gras appeals to so many people. It’s not just a Catholic
thing anymore. Everyone is welcome at Mardi Gras. We are
unified by bad taste.
(Scratch that — make it bad taste and large quantities of
alcohol.)
What is ridiculous is most Americans tend to believe the
biggest, gaudiest thing equals the best thing. Mardi Gras may
be the biggest and showiest party around with its masked
balls and wild parades, but it doesn’t necessarily present the
most lovable side of human nature.
Then again, maybe the unruly behavior is the real draw of
Mardi Gras, one that even surpasses our love of the
grandiose. Maybe it is the presence of soaring blood alcohol
levels and women exposing themselves for cheap beads that
really brings in the crowds. For a lot of people, that apparent
ly makes Mardi Gras into one swinging party.
Either way, Mardi Gras is one very large ordeal that seems
incredibly pleasing to most people.
As it is often quoted, Americans are guaranteed “Life, lib
erty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If happiness is really just
the drunken pursuit of beads, looks like we’re all set.
Beverly Mireles is a freshman microbiology major.
Backing down on Iraqi policy promises dangerous for future
bout a year ago, I placed
on the wall across from
ty desk a sign which
reads "DWYSYWD.” It means
'Do what you say you will do.”
for me, it is a daily reminder
that when 1 pledge to do some
thing (no matter how small) that
promise becomes a part of
pomeone else’s life. For my own
sake and the sake of others, I
cannot afford to make those
pledges lightly. Right now, the
United States is implementing
the “do what you say you will
do” philosophy on a grander scale as it copes with the
situation in Iraq.
By that simple statement, I don’t mean to suggest
other political and economic factors aren’t at play.
However, the United States is justified in its actions at
Adam
Collett
columnist
least in part because it is trying to honor pacts into
which it entered. That is the definition of resolve.
It is deeply disappointing that certain members of
the international community and in certain compo
nents of the American public for not having the
strength of character to stand up and be counted
when that resolve is being tested.
If the United Nations collectively signed off on the
post-Desert Storm sanctions and terms, and if certain
member nations individually voted for or accepted
them, then it is incumbent upon that body and its
members to follow through with them until they are
completed or rescinded through legitimate channels.
Thus far only Australia, Britain and Canada have pub
licly joined the United States.
Saddam’s unilateral decision to alter the terms
does not fall under the category of legitimate means.
If Iraq has evidence the sanctions are no longer ap
propriate, or if France, Russia and other nations are
having second thoughts, then they have the ability
and indeed the responsibility to pursue a formal
change. Such a change could have been advanced
prior to the current showdown and can still be sought
once this crisis has passed.
Furthermore, a vocal percentage of the American
people have been unable to deal with the issue on this
level. To be sure, there are those who conscientiously
object to any endangering entanglement, and then
there are those who are concerned that a partial reaction
will do more harm than good.
These people have legitimate concerns. But those
who have had a change of heart about the value of en
forcing the sanctions must, along with the dissenting
countries, realize that in international politics such turn
arounds are dangerous.
Acceding to Saddam’s illegitimate change method
would hurt the stature of the United Nations and of
each of the participating nations. And ultimately,
such a stature loss would come back to haunt the
American people. Holding steady and empowering
the executive branch to live up to its freely-entered-
into accords is what is most needed right now. An in
vestment of resolve at this juncture will clear away
any doubts about our country’s willingness to do
what it said it would do and will pay dividends in in
ternational relations and stability on down the road.
In fact, Clinton’s resolve under pressure thus far likely
is one of the driving forces behind Iraq’s yet-to-be-
confirmed setdement with U.N. Secretary General
Kofi Annan.
Those who think that it may be time to ease up
on or otherwise alter the sanctions may indeed be
right. And once we have ensured compliance under
the current terms, we would do well to invite those
people to the table to help form any changes. Trying
to sit down prior to full compliance, however, would
be disastrous.
Adam Collett is an educational administration
graduate student.
MAIL CALL
Debating at public
orums is acceptable
In response to Frank Stanford’s Feb.
^3 column:
I write to you trying to explain
actions that occurred on Friday,
When Norma McCorvey appeared
at Texas A&M. I spoke out, ques
tioning her. However, amidst her
ignoring my question, my ques
tion was lost.
As a Christian, I understand
many anti-choice arguments
against abortion; I contended
however, that as a political science
student, one who studies law and
constitutional rights and liberties,
that her argument, much like most
anti-choice arguments, are found
ed solely in moral and religious in
dictments and beliefs.
Laws and government here in
the United States aren’t founded in
her Christian beliefs and should
remain separate as the much ma
ligned and inferenced separation
between Church and State doc
trine calls for.
I am upset at the traditional up
heaval surrounding a simple ques
tion. I, and other dissenters, had as
much of a right to be at this forum on
a public university, as anyone else.
This was a public forum, although
one would think it was a sermon
with the passage of baskets around
to gather donations. I was respectful
and by no means patronizing.
McCorvey, under any level
semtiny, would come closest to be
ing an expert in this field. As an ad
vocate for the right to choose, she
worked in abortion clinics, those
clinics she now denounces. She
above any person, is able to see both
sides to the issue. I simply wished to
question how she could argue her
position without the religious in
dictment she now professes.
Abortion, and one’s belief about
it, is a personal conviction, one of
which usually is unmalleable. I
can tell anyone that I am pro-
choice, not anti-life, and rest easy
at night.
I could not however, profess
and advocate a pro-choice stance,
and speak out about it, write books
about it, and profit from my posi
tion then change it.
For McCorvey, I applaud her
finding God. For the Christians
here at A&M who questioned how I
could profess to be a Christian,
and how could I speak out at a
public forum, in the United States
not communist Russia, I say,
shame on you.
My speaking out at this forum,
is protected and guaranteed by
the First Amendment. This holds
true for any anti-choice senti
ment. I do however with that as
Christians we should all judge
less, and practice more.
Misty Hataway
Class of’98
Money making stands
as reason for speech
Between the praying, the pass
ing of collection plates and the
guitar strumming, one might have
thought he was at church last Fri
day night instead of on the cam
pus of a public university.
Norma McCorvey certainly
thought she was. She thought she
could get away with simply repre
senting a generic, diluted conver
sion experience wrapped in un-
couthed humor. However, when she
was challenged with the simplest of
questions about her actual beliefs,
she folded saying, “I didn’t come
here for a debate.” She should have
added, “I only came to collect mon
ey and sell books” because that’s all
that was accomplished.
Being at a public university,
some of us thought this presenta
tion would be a forum for a discus
sion. The ads certainly didn’t say
that only dull-witted, pro-life Chris
tians were welcome. We were not
warned that Norma has the speak
ing ability of a 10-year-old and the
conduct of Roseanne. How were we
to know a monologue on such a se
rious issue as abortion would turn
into a two-hour long stand-up
comedy routine?
The fact is such single-minded,
uninteresting speeches belong at
church, they always have. In such a
controlling, protectionist environ
ment, McCorvey would have been
safeguarded against such searing
questions as, “What are you doing
to advocate contraception?”
Brandon J. Logan
Class of '98