Posted on 10/14/2002 10:41:50 AM PDT by Conagher
The students of the University of Kansas should strongly oppose war against Iraq.
As educated citizens and students, we should not endorse the violence and racism inherent in the proposed armed aggression. While sustained engagement with global terrorism is important, confronting Iraq in war has broad implications and ramifications beyond opposing terrorism that are unacceptable.
The war on Iraq and the sanctions against the people of Iraq are motivated by profit and politics.
The Bush administration justifies its position against Iraq under the guise of supporting democracy, freedom and security around the world. The reality is that the war expands the empire of the United States — an empire that seeks to control money, resources, and people for corporate greed. And, because there are a lot of big companies invested and involved in the business of war and war-time products, war is profitable.
Furthermore, racial profiling and unjustified detainment of persons of color by the United States government are unacceptable by-products of opposing terrorism.
The nation becomes what it condemns if it imprisons, unjustly detains or harasses citizens of the U.S. or other nations. Also, acts of free speech, public discourse, and intellectual freedom must not be controlled and limited under the guise of preserving American security.
Since Sept. 11, we have already experienced increasing limits on personal freedom and intellectual freedom to speak as people can in the United States. We need to criticize Attorney General John Ashcroft´s creation of a climate of fear that silences dissent against his unjust and unconstitutional policies.
This “war on terrorism” has killed tens of thousands. But the “war” at home has led to policies of discrimination and injustice under the auspices of a homeland security initiative.
Consequently, the “war on terrorism” began as a fight against individuals and armed militias.
As the anniversary of Sept. 11 comes and goes, the dialog has shifted dramatically. The Bush administration is now actively campaigning to dominate and control the entire nation of Iraq using armed force.
Other solutions have not been thoroughly explored to alleviate this problem.
Act on your convictions by speaking up against this war.
CCO´s Concerned Active and Aware Student's (CAAS) program is going to be sponsoring a trip to Washington, D.C. Oct. 26-30 for make a difference day. This is an opportunity for you to join people from around the country in protesting any further military engagement in Iraq.
If you would like more information please contact theCAAS group at caas@ku.edu.
Now is the time, for without our resistance the future is at stake.
Flott is a Omaha, Neb., sophomore in politcal science and American studies.
Thus, those who would support bringing a war to the aggressors, and eliminating terrorism at it's source must be uneducated. That's a pretty superficial defense of an arguement.
Usually, political science students don't get this much mush in their head until they're seniors.
She's some sort of moron-prodigy.
We should stand by, and watch as thousands more die in the name of the "religion of peace."
We should also negotiate with an egomaniac dictator in a peaceful manner, while he keeps his finger on a button waiting to extinguish us via terrorists, and neighboring countries via chemical weapons.
Wow, she's very educated and enlightened indeed.
--erik
The war on Iraq and the sanctions against the people of Iraq are motivated by profit and politics.
The Bush administration justifies its position against Iraq under the guise of supporting democracy, freedom and security around the world. The reality is that the war expands the empire of the United States — an empire that seeks to control money, resources, and people for corporate greed. And, because there are a lot of big companies invested and involved in the business of war and war-time products, war is profitable.
Sorry for the mush spreading, but these points deserve their counter points. Based on this argument, the United States is the only aggressor in the world and other nations do not have self-interest. The real point is that if any regime, especially if lead by an unstable, brutal dictator, is allowed to intimidate its neighbors and create a new pole in geopolitical politics, would that be a benefit to the whole world? Should we let the middle east be subjected to brutal occupation by madmen with no respect for human rights? The author makes the U.S. sound like it's some kind of dictatorship bent on enslaving the world and is ambivalent at best of the human condition in those parts of the world. What does this author offer instead of criticism?
Sure, it would be great if we lived in a world where every nation got along with every other nation and the military was not needed. But it's time to get out of that dream - we live in a world full of mean, power hungery and evil leaders that would cause a world of hurt on those around them, including us. If a nation is to fall under another's sphere of influence, would it not be better if it was one of democracy, freedom and capitalism than dictatorship and pain?
I think you're right Amanda, we should embrace the culture of our "alleged" enemies, and give up this senseless war of imperialist agression inspired by corporate greed.
So put on this bhurka and shut up while I order your boyfreind wear this Semtex backpack and go blow up civilian Iraqi's because it's Allah's will.
I'm getting a little bit tired of hearing this one. How precisely does the United States profit from the UN imposed sanctions against the Iraqi regime? By limiting the flow of Iraqi oil and thereby artificially decreasing supply in the face of increasing demand, the sanctions have the effect of increasing the price of oil. The threat of war in the Middle East also tends to increase the price of oil. Higher petroleum prices have generally had negative effects on the US economy.
"The reality is that the war expands the empire of the United States...."
References to US "imperialism" are the tired residue of one of the Big Lies propogated by the Soviet Union and its apologists during the Cold War. The Soviet Union was the last of the imperialist powers, imposing its will and economic system by force of arms over Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and some parts of Asia. The US responded to the end of WWII with the Marshall Plan. The Soviets defenstrated Czech patriots and publicly hung the leaders of the Hungarian rebellion of 1956. To deflect criticism of its very real imperialist behavior, the Soviet Union and its certain "progressive" voices in the West resorted to a time honored debating technique. They so broadened the definition of imperialism that it lost virtually all meaning. Thus was born the concept of "cultural imperialism," which roughly tranlated means that, if your ideas are sufficiently attractive that a sizeable portion of the globe adopts them, you are an imperialist. Or, if you provide aid to rebels fighting a totalitarian regime (i.e the Contras), you are an imperialist, unless of course the totalitarian regime is not "progressive," in which case you are aiding a war of national liberation.
The fact is that, of all the great powers of the last 200 years, the US is the least imperialistic. Only in the Philipines did the US establish a truly colonial regime, and even there, while the occupation of the Philipines was by no means gentle, it was comparatively benign and shortlived.
"Furthermore, racial profiling and unjustified detainment of persons of color by the United States government are unacceptable...."
Apparently it would be just peachy if Gitmo were filled with Norwegians instead of Arabs. The barbarism currently at loose in the world is being perpetrated by young Arab males. It would be a dereliction of duty for law enforcement NOT to focus on young Arab males. To pay a bit more attention to a young Arab male with a large carryon boarding a commercial airliner is not the moral or legal equivalent of pulling over a car based only on the race of the people occupying the car. Furthermore, just who precisely has been unjustifiably detained?
"Since Sept. 11, we have already experinced increasing limits on personal freedom and intellectual freedom to speak as people can in the United States."
Other than being subjected to somewhat more intrusive searches at airports (it must be my Norwegian appearance), I have not experienced increased limits on my freedom. If the writer feels that her freedom of speech has been limited, it may be because, since September 11, her ideas are less acceptable to a number of people than they were before 3,000 people were slaughtered by peace loving, progressive people of color.
"The Bush administration is now actively campaining to dominate and control the entire nation of Iraq...." Where is the evidence to support this assertion? Bush has said we seek to accomplish two things: to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction and to remove Saddam from power. This would "dominate and control" an entire nation?
As a former resident of Lawrence, I am saddened but not really surprised that the posted article was deemed worthy of publication in the University Daily Kansan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.