Students speak out on the threat of war in Iraq
Date 3/6/2003 12:00 AM | Topic: OpinionDear Editor,
"There is nothing that war has ever achieved that we could not better achieve without it." -Havelock Ellis
Ed Martin, in his article from Feb. 27, 2003, claimed that pacifism is nothing more than a "popular trend for people who have little more to do than point fingers." I must ask, however, how can this be true? How can Ed Martin consider pacifism as simply a trend? How can he possibly be anti-peace? Webster's Online Dictionary defines pacifism as "opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes." Pacifism is essentially the choice of peace over violence. Understanding this definition, I must hope that everyone supports pacifism as we face a conflict with Iraq. This pacifist stance is also not merely a new trend created in opposition to President Bush and his stance on Iraq. Protesters use the idea of pacifism to represent their anti-war views in a non-violent way, not simply to point fingers and complain. Martin also claims that France and Germany have possibly chosen the path of peace because they may "have something to hide in Iraq." It is more likely that the United States has something to hide in Iraq-possibly the fact that under President Reagan we supplied Iraq with intelligence, weapons and bio-chemical agents. It is likely that these two countries and people throughout the world are against this war because they know it cannot lead to peace.
I consider myself a pacifist. I take this stance because I believe that violence is morally wrong and should never be considered an option. In regard to Iraq, I feel that war is the incorrect decision for several reasons. First, it is likely that thousands of civilians and soldiers will die in this conflict and this loss of life is just too much to bear. A war would leave a country and its people destroyed. Second, if Iraq does hold weapons of mass destruction, as President Bush has claimed (and never actually backed up with concrete evidence), then what is to stop them from using these weapons in the case of a pre-emptive strike. This war could also spurn other anti-American countries in volatile regions to attack our country. Third, the money spent on this war and its aftermath could certainly be better spent. The billions of dollars could be used to improve our nation's education program, stimulate our sluggish economy, support social security, ease our growing national debt or go towards any number of other more worthy causes. Finally, I feel that we simply cannot continue this cycle of war throughout the world. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that the eye-for-an-eye philosophy leaves everyone blind. If we continue to choose war over peace, we will eventually create a world of violence, hate and ruin.
-Aaron Simpson ('04)Dear Editor,
I often read Chips appreciating the intelligent student contributors who have chosen to share a part of themselves through their work and views on life here at Luther College and beyond. I have felt personally inspired and motivated by the young people here on campus. But there are times when I am completely disappointed with students who attend this college, more specifically, when such students take on the role of the "perpetual whiner." In response to the Headless Horseman column, Feb. 20, 2003, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the person who has such an insulated life that he/she chose to complain about imperfect living conditions at Luther College. Granted, dorm life may not be perfect for you as a paying student. I am sure you believe that you deserve great things here, and for the most part I am sure you receive that and much more. But realize this, there are many students who would love the opportunity to attend college at all, and would feel blessed to attend such a wonderful private institution that you have chosen to belittle with complaints of dorm imperfections. Are you so shallow that you have nothing better to focus on? Perhaps you could focus on the opportunities that Luther affords you in education and life experiences. How about appreciating the fact that you have the opportunity to take advantage of post-secondary education when others cannot. And maybe you might even appreciate the fact that you have heat when others have none. I cannot believe you feel it necessary to grieve about it being too warm in your room when people are suffering because they cannot afford to heat their homes. And I cannot believe that you are complaining about fluctuating power in Farwell, when others cannot afford power for their homes. Instead of focusing on what you don't have, please, just for a few moments, focus on what you have been blessed with. Obviously, you see the cup half empty, instead of half full. Need I say more?
-Kim SoukupDear Editor,
In response to Ed Martin's past article, "Pacifism or Popular Trend," we would like to say that we completely disagree with Martin's arguments concerning the effectiveness of protesting and the rationale for going to war. We were also somewhat confused by his column. We would like to ask Martin a few questions.
Number 1: If the protests in the last few weeks have been "some of the largest in the history of the respective countries," why is it so hard to take them seriously? How does one decide who is to be taken seriously? Protesting is both effective and serious. Does the civil rights movement of the 1960's (which included both mass protests and acts of civil disobedience) ring a bell?
Number 2: Martin says he is "concerned about how many of these protestors really care for what they are demonstrating." If so, has Martin asked any of the Luther students who have attended protests what they think? Seeing that almost everyone at Luther who has attended a rally or protest during the past school year helped to plan Peace Week, which was a tremendous amount of work, it seems in our experience that people who protest care deeply about the issues they stand up for. Do not attempt to make windows of these people's souls or simplify their motives.
Number 3: If "in no way does anyone want to go to war," why should we, the American public, support any motive for starting a war with Iraq? "Revenge for assassination attempts on George Bush Sr." is not a good enough reason to risk not only the lives of American women and men in the Armed service but also an estimated 500,000 innocent Iraqi lives. George W. Bush has not given a consistent or adequate reason to use military force, nor is he "representing his country," as a recent New York Times poll reveals that 63 percent of Americans believe the United States. should not take military action without the support of its allies.
Pacifism may be a "popular trend," but it is not one that will pass quickly. Nonviolence is the rational, humanistic approach to resolving conflict. It is the creed of those who work for equality, justice and the preservation of human life. Seeing as Martin's letter comes on the heels of Peace Week at Luther (which included a guest lecture by Granny D., an activist who traversed the United States on foot at age 90, making speeches along the way about campaign reform), perhaps Martin could offer more imaginative ways to demonstrate to the U.S. government that war is unnecessary.
-Meghan Karels ('05)
Erika Prater ('03)
Ryan J. Punt ('03)
Lindsay McRae Sumner ('06)Dear Editor,
There are few things in life that frustrate me more than absolutism. With regard to the war in Iraq, the message presented is that one is either 100 percent anti-Bush and anti-war or pro-Bush and pro-war. This is a severe simplification of very complicated issues. Let me present the side of someone who sees both sides of the coin.
First of all, I resent the notion that a war is either "just" or "unjust." Once again, the issue is not black and white. Not only am I far from the greatest philosopher the world has ever seen, but I have absolutely no experience in international politics. It is not my place to judge. Justice is, after all, dependent on personal attitudes and morals. What is fair to me may not be fair to you.
Second, many people see war as a means to peace. This includes a relatively large conservative faction. While I do not place myself under that heading, I get very frustrated by the fact that "conservative" and "evil" seem to be synonymous in certain circles on this campus. It is grossly unfair. Just because one is conservative does not make one a "war-monger." It does not mean that conservatives like to see innocent civilians die or billions of dollars we don't have being wasted. It simply means that some individuals feel that there are several paths to peace.
Third, I have yet to see viable alternatives to war presented by any government official. France and Germany have every right to their opinions, but I'm sick of the whining. If you don't want war, please give us some options. Tell us how to avoid war. Present workable solutions. I'm not seeing this.
In conclusion, I dislike war and wish it could be avoided at all costs. In this sense, I am an idealist. It seems to me that the United States has only acted to preserve its interests and often shields that with the words "humanitarian mission," but maybe that has to change. Do we want Iraq for oil? Maybe, but maybe we need to be thinking about what the Iraqi people are living with under the terror of Saddam Hussein, because terror is exactly what keeps him in control. He is a horrible excuse for a human being. He refuses to be exiled, and he refuses to comply completely with the United Nations.
What are our options? I don't know. I'm not 100 percent in support of the war nor am I 100 percent against it. I know my limits; I know that I don't know everything. It is for this reason, not naiveté, that I put my faith in those wiser beings who have much more political experience than I can ever aspire to.
-Jennifer Rust ('03)--
Carl Haakenstad
Staff Writer
[ Comment, Edit or Article Submission ]
