Column is out of touch with reality
In response to Ben Shapiro’s pro-retaliation piece
(“Practicing pacifism in
face of attacks will hurt nation,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Oct. 22), I would like to state the following:
I do support the war. It is necessary for our power to be
credible so that we may defend ourselves and our interests.
However, I find Shapiro’s bravado to be quite tasteless and
out of touch with reality.
Retaliation should be enforced in the appropriate degree, as it
has been so far. Sword rattling, however, can only support the view
of American arrogance already shared by far too many people in this
world.
The statement that “America has always been true to its
ideals in support of freedom, democracy and the ability to pursue
happiness” is simply hypocritical. Please remember Pinochet,
pre-revolutionary Iran, and the support of the Contras in Central
America, among other American-backed enterprises.
On a side-note, Franklin D. Roosevelt did not declare war on
Japan, since this is not a power given to the president. Hitler did
not invade the Sudetenland, but occupied it with the reluctant
consent of Czechoslovakia and Britain. And the use of atomic
weapons on Japan did not mark the end of imperialism, but rather,
the beginning of the American kind.
Shapiro’s quote from Georgia’s Zell Miller, relaying
his indifference toward casualties, his reverence of Barry
Goldwater as “the epitome of patriotism,” and his
insinuation that Bill Clinton is to blame for Sept. 11 just goes to
show how this piece deviated from any kind of thoughtfulness or
sense of moderation.
Nathan Gonzalez Third-year Political
Science
Anti-war protests are not naive
I’d like to offer Edward Mariscal a little help in
figuring out “what exactly … anti-war protesters (are)
protesting” (“Anti-war
demonstrators forget pain of U.S. on Sept. 11,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Oct. 23).
Simply put, these protesters do not believe an act of war is
justified as a response to the events of Sept. 11. Is that put
simply enough?
I can understand that Mr. Mariscal may not agree with the
protesters and that he may believe war is the only viable response;
however, in defense of his position, he brings up a few completely
indefensible points, and I would like to help him clear those up as
well.
It seems unlikely that the average anti-war protester
“prefer(s) the continued oppression of women” by the
Taliban. Although, up until Sept. 11, the U.S. government
didn’t have any real problem with it. Reports of serious
human-rights abuse and gender crimes have been coming out of
Afghanistan for about half a decade now and the U.S. hasn’t
done anything significant about it. There may (or may not) have
been motions in Congress and/or the U.N., but no real action has
come to my attention.
The gender crimes of the Taliban have no bearing on the events
of Sept. 11 or the U.S. response, hence Mariscal’s attempt to
paint anti-war protesters with this particular brush is either
somewhat uninformed and clumsy or else it is deliberately
disingenuous.
Also, I think that most of the protesters would agree that
killing Americans ““ and especially American children ““
in the World Trade Center was an act of evil.
However, unlike himself, those who compel Mariscal to
“vomit” by serving as continual reminders of Afghan
suffering, illustrate their ability to extend their compassion and
care half a world away to Afghans and their children. I suppose I
might say that while Mariscal’s “tribe” is the
American nation, their “tribe”is humanity.
Obviously there can be no agreement between these opposing
worldviews, but perhaps that helps clarify the apparent
contradiction: the protestors believe, as I do, that it is possible
to grieve for the Americans dead, while also grieving for the dead
Afghans ““ including many more who will be starving to death
this winter.
I must also take issue with Mariscal’s assertion that the
media will remind us incessantly of Afghan suffering and completely
forget about the American suffering brought about by the events of
Sept. 11. That assertion is clearly false — may I refer him to the
current headlines? Coverage of the attacks and their aftermath
continues. The sufferings of the Afghan nation are themselves a
part of the consequence of the attacks ““ in case Mariscal has
forgotten.
When Mariscal asks whether the protesters are “naive
enough” to believe that cessation of military action will
“eliminate the threat of more terrorism,” I will dare
to answer for them and say no, they are not.
I have yet to see anyone other than Mariscal himself make a
causal link between “stopping the bombing” and the
elimination of the threat. So no, the protesters are most likely
not that naive. He is, though, if he believes their ideas are that
simplistic.
Luis Felipe Morales Mechanical and aerospace
engineering