U.S. supports a double standard
Some say that the world is out of control and America needs to
exert its influence over “evil” countries. Some
claim that anti-war protesters are anti-American and should support
Bush and the troops. These approaches are misguided at best
and dangerous at worst. This is not a moral issue; it is not
about God or good versus evil. This is not a war about cruel
dictators. Jong-il of Korea has about 200,000 people in
concentration camps in North Korea. The rulers of Burma have
committed documented crimes against humanity. Likewise, Putin
of Russia has slaughtered many Chechens. This is not a war
about U.N. Security Council resolutions. Israel has broken more
resolutions than Iraq. Iraq is not a threat to its neighbors,
because it went to war (encouraged by the United States) with
Iran.
The United States’ record abroad is grim since World War
II. It has set out on more than 100 military campaigns to influence
foreign affairs, in countries such as Vietnam, Panama, El Salvador
and Somalia. However, it has not intervened in many more cases
that should have taken greater precedence. Why the double
standard? Some say oil and some say global
strategy. Whatever it may be, it is not worth the sacrifice of
lives, American or otherwise.
Will Welch
Third-year, psychology
Negotiation wrong
With all due respect, Namhee Lee (“U.S. must bilaterally
negotiate,” March 10) is evading the moral nature of the
North Korean conflict. In her submission, Lee argues that the
United States should restart bilateral negotiations with the North
Koreans. She implies that President George W. Bush’s refusal
to do so and “open hostility” will result in a
dangerous escalation of tensions.
I want to ask Lee, what shall we negotiate? The United
States stopped fuel oil shipments after North Korea admitted it had
been flagrantly violating the agreed framework for years.
North Korea has since demanded bilateral negotiations, yes, but
it has also been restarting its nuclear weapons programs as well as
broadcasting threats and shooting off missiles.
These are not the actions of a conciliatory nation. To accept
North Korea’s demands for “negotiations” would be
to appease a tyrant and would only encourage North Korea’s
militaristic ambitions. In short, it would be immoral.
Until North Korea truly and honestly shows its desire for
reduced tensions by stopping its illegal weapons programs and
accepting genuine disarmament, the United States must not treat
North Korea as a nation that deserves our respect or our aid.
There can be no compromise between American democracy and North
Korean nuclear ambition.
Robert Johnston
President, The Objectivist Club at UCLA
Protest letters narrow-minded
A statement needs to be made in response to the recent slew of
anti-protest letters. One woman complained about how the Daily
Bruin didn’t represent her (“Intellect absent from
editorials”, March 10). She then went on to generalize all
the UCLA protesters as “spoiled liberal brats.” Well,
Elizabeth Mealing, you don’t represent me either, and it is
plain stupid to counteract one generalized opinion with another
generalized opinion.
If you were to encounter a rich, wealthy liberal, you would most
likely brand him or her a “spoiled brat, who has no idea what
it’s like to be the poor people he or she is
defending.” Likewise, if you were to encounter a poor,
underrepresented liberal, you would most likely label him or her as
an angry fool, who “can’t afford to be a
conservative.” I am one of those “poor” liberals,
pulling my own bootstraps through this fine campus every morning,
and I think it is absolute idiocy that compels anyone to use
generalizations about a group’s character to attack
individuals in an argument for or against a cause.
The point of the walkout wasn’t to ditch class. The point
was to show everyone else in this school where we stand on the
issue ““ to get them to think about the effects that it will
have on education and people in general. If one can’t see
past the black and white, the point was obviously lost on them.
Karisma Rodriguez
Second-year, English
Editorials deserve praise
I want to congratulate the Daily Bruin editorial board and
express my appreciation for the truthfulness, sincerity and courage
you demonstrate in your unsigned editorials. Not only do they show
social consciousness with respect to civil and humanitarian issues,
but they are also focused and well written. No straying off the
subject, etc.
You give me reason to feel proud about being a UCLA student.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I wish the antagonistic element
among your readers who declaim you would wake up and search more
deeply into the issues they are so opinionated about, e.g. the war
against Iraq. Perhaps then they would be more appreciative of the
articulation and wisdom you people regularly display. Peace be with
you.
Ingmar Northcott
Fourth-year, philosophy
Bruin biased in walkout coverage
In framing the walkout the Daily Bruin failed to provide even a
modicum of objectivity. By stating that students were moving toward
“peace” the cover story tacitly equates the protesters
proposed policy of inaction with peace. Equating anything the
protesters advocate with peace means that all those who oppose the
protesters are not for peace.
Besides the anomalous sadist, everyone for or against the United
States’ invasion of Iraq wants peace. The entire debate about
the United States’ probable war hinges upon who can in fact
achieve the better peace. Unfortunately, the Daily Bruin’s
headline vitiates the important debate about costs and
benefits.
Such normative framing belongs to the same logical family as
President Bush’s quip that “you are either with us or
against us.” With both of these binaries, all dissenting
arguments become a part of the enemy, whether this enemy is
terrorism, militarism or pacifism.
For future coverage, I implore The Bruin to use less opinion
outside of their opinion page.
Grant Rabenn,
Fourth-year, political science and history
Alarm-tripping immature
Did I miss the Daily Bruin’s reporting of the emergency
alarm evacuation of Murphy Hall that occurred Wednesday, March 5?
In the middle of the afternoon, all the alarms in Murphy were
tripped, and hundreds had to rapidly exit the building.
While no official explanation for this alarm-tripping has been
announced, many of us thought it was one hell of a coincidence,
happening at the same time as the campus demonstrations.
Perhaps there is a mundane explanation.
But if in fact it was an irresponsible protester who committed
this crime, for me it only underscores how immature some
participants in this current anti-war movement truly are.
Solomon M. Matsas
Student Affairs
Staff Development Coordinator