NATION
5 BATTALION
tews
reair
'oom at MSNBC
the war started
yees note it hasn't
tier).
:'s been putting in
• days anchoring,
little time for
tage of being on
ong is you are
iformation all
i. "When 1 talk to
pondent) David
ilogue what he's
he weather.”
BC headquarters
:h of NBC News,
rperations room
iA’s mission con-
ig in that day was
exclusive inter-
s Tariq Aziz,
tent. Arnett's per-
source of pride,
an shift fortunes
.lays later. Arnett
i the network for
iproved interview
on.
t the interview
ideophone. The
leveled the play-
sring the war. But
n have producers
rut the uplinks on
idded reporters
i they come up,"
s executive pro-
tffney. “We can't
one at 10:41 and
>e there five min-
ready to go. We
tuff around.”
ibble
:ity
r club co-owner
:n inflate capaci-
inds.
ey for the other
id neither of the
>he said the 550
tar Talent Buyer
•oking agents,
the Derderians
ore importantly,
club,” she said,
editor in chief,
ion listed in the
tation’s capacity
•e the Derderians
chers talked to
ber to update the
e was the phone
ing that private
itors, found the
>1?
d Only
F
als
dise
I
ten's
jewelry
10
lege Station
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7B • Thursday, April 10, 2003
Protesters should
join the military
(U-WIRE) NORMAN,
Okla. — A few weeks ago I
witnessed several students,
faculty and staff members
rallying at a pro-war demon
stration near the South Oval.
My stance, position and/or
opinions on the war are irrel
evant because I don’t believe
I can examine the motives for
the war impartially.
The pro-war rally amazed
me because people were
assembled in the Oval with
poster boards and cardboard
signs out there loud and
proud, making their opinions
known and their voices
heard. But that’s not what
amazed me. What really
“shocked and awed” me was
the fact that all these people
were still here in Norman.
Okla., and not over in
Afghanistan. Kuwait or Iraq.
All that hoopla about war
and protecting the freedoms
of people, one would expect
these same people to be serv
ing in the trenches of Kuwait,
the caves of Afghanistan or
on the front lines in Iraq.
One would suspect that
they’d be proudly serving in
the armed forces wearing
camouflage fatigues and the
symbol of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness on their
lapel. Instead, they were
gathered near the South
Oval! The fact of the matter
is one shouldn’t merely “talk
about it” instead one should
“be about it.”
So many of the pro-war
demonstrators have never
served a day in the armed
forces and/or have never and
will never encounter life
threatening situations that
require the use of weapons
for protection and salvation.
The people at the rally are
not stationed in Kuwait right
now dealing with the fluctu
ating weather climate and
unbearable sand storms that
can overcome and even stag
nate the human spirit.
No, these people who rally
for war are staunch conserva
tives and neo-conservatives
that pray for war in hopes of
keeping the battle as far away
from them as possible. While
young men and women look
ing for a fresh start, financial
stability or a tangible means
of demonstrating their patri
otism for our country, the
people who rally for the war
are enjoying the luxury of
residing in Norman. “The
mean streets” of Norman.
Oh, the turmoil they must
feel for being in such a
volatile environment like the
University of Oklahoma
where they are required to
attend classes and deal with
the harsh realities that the
stress caused from multiple
assignments could eventually
lead to an ulcer or, even
worse, death.
The pro-war demonstra
tors enjoy living the high life
over here, while our soldiers
(the true patriots) are putting
their lives on the line every
day in a foreign land. Can
you imagine some of the
high-class bourgeois being in
some remote land without the
luxuries of a credit card sized
cell phone and a state of the
art wireless Ethernet connec
tion? They would probably
loose their minds. The reality
is that people like my sister
are over there fighting for
this country and whatever
decisions our president
makes, they are not simply
just rallying with pieces of
cardboard.
People have the right to
assemble. Equally, in this
country, people have the right
to speak freely without harm.
These are a few rights that
we are guaranteed by the
United States Constitution's
Bill of Rights. 1 just wish the
people who are stalwart pro
war lobbyists would strap on
a helmet, put on some
fatigues and grab a weapon.
Fight for your beliefs. Don’t
just talk about them.
Andrew Legrnnd is a columnist
at the University of Oklahoma.
Tune them out
Bush administration need not listen to opinion polls
******
******
*+*+**
******
******
******
******
W hen former
President
Truman
dropped atomic bombs
on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in 1945, it was
an action done without
public opinion polls dic
tating how the matter
should be handled.
Disregarding the public support, the U.S.
military acted independently, and by doing
so, expedited the conclusion of World War
II.Yet, in 1973, the final American troops
departed from Vietnam, leaving a poorly
equipped nation to defend itself. Although
many political and military components
factored into the decision to withdraw
troops, a major element was the massive
public opposition to the war.
Since that point, even the most aggres
sive of presidents has been reluctant to
fight any battle with all of America’s
strength due to possible public resistance.
The chance of America being seen as an
aggressor by other countries and its own
citizens is a risk few presidents want to
take. However, public opinion should not
dictate the actions of the president or the
military, and the attacks that this current
conflict demand should not be softened.
The United States entered this war with
high goals and lofty diplomatic phrases such
as “Iraqi liberation,” in efforts to convince
the public that the U.S. acts of aggression
against Iraq were rational and humanitarian.
While the United States does have honorable
goals behind the attack on Iraq, the bottom
line is one of self protection against weapons
of mass destruction. Defending the interests
of the United States and other countries that
are not strong enough to safeguard them
selves is not a poor decision. The problem
arises in the mound of mixed messages not
only sent by the military itself, but by the
media and the government. The United
States has simultaneously killed thousands of
Iraqis and provided relief for them. This
attempt to repair the damage done by send
ing aid is hardly effective.While this may be
demonstrative of the sympathy expressed by
many Americans, its true origins lie in an
attempt to boost public opinion by convinc
ing members of the United Nations, as well
as the American public, that the United
States is benevolent while it attacks.
If America continues to offer relief and
to only attack Iraqi targets reluctantly, it
weakens our effort. True strength would
be shown if America did not attempt to
please everyone, and did not offer relief
to those regimes it is trying to overthrow.
The plight of the suppressed Iraqis does
invoke pity, but the removal of that tyranny
was one of the main motives for this war. If
the Iraqi forces continue to observe our
sympathy and assistance, instead of our
determination, they won’t feel the need for
surrender as sharply. The Iraqi submission
will be more eminent if America shows its
strength by not offering to help them until
they have surrendered. Assistance can be
given once Saddam Hussein’s regime has
been removed, and only through this policy
will the conclusion of war be accelerated.
The conflict with Iraq is not a diplo
matic strategy or a simple military occu
pation. It is war, and the American public
should expect the military to continue to
treat it as one.
Now, as public support of military
action is fluctuating, it is not necessary to
add in more relief packages or to institute
more propaganda to convince the
American public of the need for this war.
The need is evident enough already. The
unavoidable truth is that there will be
those supporting the war and those against
it, and it is impossible to please everyone.
Both sides hold their own points that
everyone agrees with. No one wants any
U.S. soldiers to die and no one wants
Saddam in control or more terrorist
attacks to occur, and both of these points
can run in circles with no solution being
found. However, it is not the public’s job
to debate if this war is worth fighting.
The Bush administration has already
decided that for the public. Now it is the
public’s job to attempt to stay informed
and support the actions of a military that
protects their freedoms.
Sara Foley is a sophomore
journalism major.
Graphic by Becky Maiden.
SARA
FOLEY
MAIL CALL
There are other places with
human rights violations
it seems every day brings a new letter asking
"How can you oppose a war to liberate people
from a horrible man like Saddam Hussein?" I have
jseen it compared to stopping Hitler or Stalin a
number of times. To these people I ask, where
; was your voice the last ten years? Where were you
when 600,000 people were slaughtered in
Rwanda? Where was your voice when Bosnian
Serbs filled mass graves in Srebrenica? Where was
[your voice when the Albanians were being
"cleansed" in Kosovo?
Do the words Haiti, Iran, North Korea or Somalia
ring a bell? If you are so concerned about the
human rights abuses taking place they should. If it
is Republicans, led by President Bush, determined
to stop the madness in Iraq it was the same
Republicans who said the United States is not the
world's policeman. "We can't be all things to all
people. We are not nation builders," were the
words Bush used repeatedly in the 2000
Presidential debates while explaining why he
would not have sent ground troops into Haiti,
Somalia, Rwanda or the Balkans.
Saddam Hussein is an evil man, let there be no
question. But evil similar to his exists in places the
world over. If we are in Iraq to liberate people
from evil then to those people so vocally profess
ing how noble this action is I say don't lose your
voice when the suffering takes place in a country
with no oil reserves.
Nicholas Franklin
Class of 2003
Aggie Nights program is a
good alternative
In response to Matthew Maddox's April 7 col
umn:
Coming out of Fish Camp in fall of 2001,1 strug-
| gled to find a place on campus. The more I tried
to fit in with my new Fish Camp friends and lead
ers, the further 1 fell into a wasteland of hypocrisy
and disillusionment.
When I discovered a more non-threatening and
better yet, alcohol-free activity, namely Aggie
Nights, it was a breath of fresh air in what proved
to be a turbulent freshman experience. I now felt
like 1 fit in somewhere, and had a place to go
where I wouldn't be pressured to engage in illegal
activities. I'm not saying that Aggie Nights is a
cure-all for problems associated with the college
party culture, but it is a popular, cheap, and reliev
ing form of entertainment, especially for the silent
masses who have better things to do with their
time and money than to use it to destroy their
own brain cells. If Matthew Maddox could find a
better way to use the relatively minuscule amount
of funding required to sustain Aggie Nights, I'd
like to see him lobbying for it rather than flaming
such a successful social program in the opinion
section of the Battalion.
Daniel Lewis
Class of 2005
New war is shorter and quicker
than Gulf War was
In response to Justin Hill's April 8 column:
I honestly don't know if you are mixing your
own opinion about this war, or are trying to objec
tively report that of others, but I'd guess the for
mer. First, you make it seem as if two weeks is a
long time for a war. The Bush administration was
definitely optimistic about the war, and why
wouldn't they be? We have 300,000+ soldiers on
the ground at this moment, along with thousands
of coalition troops.
We have the most advanced war machinery in
the entire world. However, no high ranking official
at any moment, specified a definite deadline for
this war. You quoted Time Magazine, as reporting
that "the administration gave the impression it
had devised a Teflon war: quick, easy, relatively
bloodless."
In addition, you say that the true colors have
shown, and that the optimistic outlook has been
debunked. Here are some statistics for you, since
you seem bent on appearing uninformed: Gulfwar
U.S. Casualties: 293. Wounded: 467. Cost of Gulf
War: $102 billion. Planes lost: 63. Iraqi soldier
casualties: 100,000. Gulf War length: 42 days.
Also, lets not forget, WWII claimed 407,000
American lives. Comparing these statistics to
Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. casualties: 96, cost:
$80 billion, Current Length: 20 days. By all
accounts, at this very moment, this war is going to
be quick, easy, and relatively bloodless. Not to
mention, the tax payers will be partially reim
bursed for the cost after we start reorganizing the
infrastructure of Iraq with oil money.
Evan Gardner
Class of 2005
Financial problems are more
pressing than diversity
In response to the UniDiversity ad in Monday's
newspaper:
I am appalled that the University had the
temerity to advertise the thousands of dollars it
is squandering on "UniDiversity Day" while in the
same breath asking the legislature for more
money, raising tuition and telling students it can
not keep classroom doors open this summer.
The notion of diversity is a fine ideal, but, as
Dr. Gates has said, priorities must be made. I
believe it reasonable to think the University can
pursue diversity goals—however maligned they
may be-without spending thousands of dollars
on an event that will likely attract only a small
percentage of the student body.
Students should be taking a close look at how
the University spends money as it claims to be
in severe financial straits. At least those of us
graduating in May can take solace in knowing
we will no longer have finance Gates' liberal
manifesto.
Brady Creel
Graduate Student
Coverage of women's
championship was lacking
As an avid basketball fan, I was excited to see
the Battalion's coverage of the men's NCAA
championship game on the front page of
Tuesday's paper.
However, I was equally disappointed when I
could not find a single word in the Wednesday
Battalion about the excellent match-up in the
women's championship between the perennial
powers Tennessee and Connecticut. The media
has the power to shape society's perceptions of
what is important and what is not, and your
paper consistently sends a clear message: men
count, women don't. I understand that not
every story can make the cut, but if there's room
for men, why isn't there room for women?
Amanda Thompson
Class of 2003
Masters should include women
I don't plan on watching The Masters this
year. I am an avid golfer, and regularly keep up
with the PGA tour, but this year, the tournament
has met a catalyst: Martha Burke. Augusta
National has always been a sexist club.
However, our times have changed. Same-sex
clubs are permitted to admit only men as members,
guaranteed by our constitution. This argument isn't
about laws however.
With all of the pomp and circumstance surround
ing the tournament, Augusta National should go
one step beyond our law. Augusta's members
should realize they have a moral obligation to invite
women as members. There are no morals in being
discriminatory against one gender.
The USGA allows females to play in its PGA tour
naments, what is the big deal in keeping the tourna
ment at a sexist club? The USGA, normally support
ive of gender equality in golf, has remained quiet on
this issue. If you believe that these men should
change how they operate, write the USGA to per
suade them to change the location of the tourna
ment. Until a change, in ethics or location, I'm not
interested in the tournament.
Kevin Sullivan
Class of 2004