Bush's true motives

Seje Henry-Hughes' opinion piece, "A minority reports: Liberation and disarmament needed in Iraq" makes an important point: after 12 years of "dormancy and idleness," why are we now so valiantly supportive of starving Iraqi children?

The truth is that our government is not. The original reason for going to war was not to liberate the Iraqis, but to stop Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs and to prevent Saddam Hussein from harboring terrorists, even though no real proof of a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda exists. Only recently has the reason for military action in Iraq shifted emphasis toward "liberating" the citizens of Iraq who have been impoverished significantly by 12 years of the United Nation's economic sanctions. Only recently has George Bush and his administration turned their compassion toward the suffering Iraqi people, people deprived of food and medicine by our own international policies. The use of uranium-depleted shells during the Gulf War alone increased cancer among the Iraqi population by over 100 percent. You condemn peace protestors for supporting the cause of a suffering people after 12 years of relative inaction, but it is the American government itself that has had a change of heart after these 12 years.

Liberation is necessary in Iraq but the question remains: has the American government gone into Iraq with any real intention of "liberating" Iraqis and then helping them to create a government that truly represents the Iraqi people? The U.S. does not have a good track record in nation-building.

No one is against improving the situation of the citizens of Iraq. No one wants Saddam Hussein to stay in power, least of all the peace protestors. However, liberation of the Iraqi people has never been the motivation of our government in this campaign for military action. President Bush insists that we are "freeing" the Iraqis. However, by making them pay for this freedom in civilian deaths, by ignoring the United Nations and by giving contracts to U.S. oil businesses, the administration is acting more to promote U.S. economic interests than to free the people of Iraq.

Eileen Fitzpatrick, '06
 

Regime change unjustifiable

In the March 28 issue of The Mac Weekly, Dr. William Rowe offered an argument for regime change in Iraq, stating that he supports military action to remove Saddam Hussein but opposes the tactics used by the Bush administration and their "arrogant and careless disregard for the United Nations and our allies around the world."

His letter seemed to provide a refreshing contrast to the emotional rants that tend to dominate pro-war fervor. However, in the end, his argument amounted to the same thing one hears repeated throughout the mass media: Saddam is evil, he has done great harm to his people, and so we are justified in invading Iraq militarily and installing a new regime.

Does this mean that the U.S. military is justified in invading every nation where cruel leaders oppress their people? If so, then dozens of other countries await American military invasion when they are finished in Iraq. This appears to be the plan favored by Perle, Wolfewitz and Kristol.

If the logical conclusion of this argument is not a series of invasions around the world, then what sets Iraq apart? Why Iraq and not Pakistan? Myanmar? Libya? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? The Democratic Republic of the Congo? China?

The real reasons that the U.S. has invaded Iraq have nothing to do with the cruelties of Saddam against his people, nor with his ability to threaten the United States. The real reasons are geo-political and economic. As our long history of propping up cruel dictators (including Saddam himself) shows, we do not invade countries to liberate people from oppression. There is always another, more pragmatic reason. And so, Dr. Rowe's compassionate and detailed argument for the humanitarian liberation of Iraq has no relevance.

Michael Griffin
Visiting Assistant Professor
Communication and Media Studies
 

Challenging pranksters to real dialogue

Egging our peace camp was a pathetic move. I understand that pranks can be fun, but if you really needed to bust out some seventh-grade-style moves on us, couldn't you have mooned us instead? Or maybe knocked on our tent doors and then run off giggling?

Throwing eggs at our tents was disrespectful to us and to our peaceful space, and it was disrespectful to people less fortunate than you. Throwing eggs is an unnecessary waste of food.

If you do not understand or disagree with the peace camp, please come and talk to us about it. We meet every evening at 6:00 p.m. Also, there is always someone around the camp who would be happy to talk with you any time of the day. Seriously, come and hang out sometime. We all have different reasons for being in the camp. Whether or not you agree with us, dissent is what creates a better society.

I am not asking you to share my views about peace, Iraq, Bush or the world in general. But I am asking you to show basic respect.

Megan Cler '03
 

Peace Camp flag isrespected

There are many who feel it very disheartening to look out the Campus Center window and see our American flag defaced. The flag is symbolic of the Democracy in which we are lucky enough to live. Our freedom and our way of life as we know it today came at a great price. Many lives were lost in defense of the flag. It is the freedom of speech and demonstration that allows everyone to voice their opinion and protest war in the first place. Why must people then disrespect the American flag in such a manner as to drag it on the ground and deface it? It is stated in Public Law 94-344 94th Congress that the U.S. flag should never have placed upon it, or any part of it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture or drawing of any nature. It also states that the U.S. flag should never touch anything beneath it—ground, floor, water or merchandise. This is occurring outside the Campus Center. America is at war, I do not like war and I do not believe anyone does. Neither do I want war, but there are many men and women with their lives on the line right now believing in and fighting for the way of life we have come to know and often take for granted. Now, more than ever, we should support our troops and stand behind them. If the flag cannot be displayed with dignity, honor, pride and gratitude it should not be displayed at all.

Nancy O'Connor, Catering
 

Morales misunderstood

The crude and misleading statements in Josh Gatling's features piece ("Jeanne Morales lets her voice be heard, abuses power") need to be corrected. The Student Union was not built yesterday or even two years ago, it has been in the same location for over 50 years. The Ruth Stricker Dayton Campus Center was not put "over there," it has always been there. I made the case in the Dec. 1, 2000 issue of The Mac Weekly for building a bridge across Grand Avenue. The administration has looked into building such a bridge but it is not viable. It would have to clear a height of 14.5 feet and the approach ramps would have to meet standards for handicap access. While the main span of the bridge would be only 80 to 100 feet, the approach ramps require 360 feet of bridge at each end at a five percent slope up to the main span. A median across Grand Avenue is an improvement over the status quo. Please inform yourself before unfairly criticizing others.

Ilya P. Winham '03
 

War is result of failed democratic process

The titanic structures of global stability Macalester students have consistently criticized over the past 40 years are now being systematically eviscerated by the most dangerous and corrupt executive administration in American history. A new world order, promoted and executed by an elite corps of wealthy "neo-conservatives" in Washington, operates under violent unilateralism to conquer any significant challenge to a global structure of obscene inequality.

The fissures now emerging in the world are the inevitable consequences of this striking inequality actualized. They could most swiftly be addressed in one of two ways. Resources could be redistributed to poor people around the world through democratic bodies and institutions. The Bush Administration is pursuing further resource appropriation through violent suppression by those who currently control the resources.

This extraordinary development was only made possible by the implosion of the democratic process in the United States. The current breakdown of this democratic process is rooted in economic inequality and is sustained through falsehoods in the media. Over the past thirty years we have witnessed the meltdown of America's once-dominant middle class, its civic infrastructures, accountability in politics and strong unions. This has occurred in tandem with the American press' transformation into a media oligopoly. This media oligopoly is more interested in justifying the policies of its owners and sponsors than in reporting critical news.

Nowhere has this collusion between media deception and growing economic and political powerlessness been more acute than in the phenomenon of George W. Bush. His entire pretext for the Iraq crisis was founded on a lie, "Iraq will deploy weapons of mass destruction against us and holds viable ties with Al-Qaeda." Even the CIA has admitted that no Iraqi-Al-Qaeda ties have been found. However, a majority of Americans remain convinced that Saddam and Osama were "good friends." This lie has already destroyed much of the Atlantic Alliance, routed billions of dollars from the working class into the military apparatus, awarded billions of dollars in post-war contracts to billionaire firms with ties to the White House and will kill thousands more American GIs and Iraqi civilians.

The only hope for future peace and progress is for The United States' democratic process to be returned to the people. This will require a restructuring of wealth, power and media control in the US before it can happen around the world. Significant change in this regard will require either a dramatic reform of the Democratic Party platform or the ascendancy of a new, progressive political party. In the short-term it requires the defeat of President Bush by the Democratic Party in 2004.

Ethical, empowered and intelligent American citizens, like those emerging at Macalester, are poised to form the vanguard of this critical process.

Alex McBride '02