Hi 66 / Lo 57
|Volume 68, Issue 49,
Friday, November 1, 2002
Americans do not want the war
Is our so-called representative democracy really standing up for what Americans believe in?
Our government is made up of old, white, rich men, not at all representative of our populace — and our calls for a stop to threats of war are falling on deaf ears.
Not only are Americans protesting the war. Protests are stretching to the far corners of the Earth, while President Bush is rallying support for his whirlwind death tour in the Middle East, playing the Lone Ranger and asking others to giddy-up and join the bandwagon.
But his calls will fall on deaf ears.
Surprise, Dubya. We are informed of the hypocrisy of your administration and are joining forces by the thousands — students, professors, men and women, rich and poor — to make a point.
The anti-war forces are a better representation of our country than the occupants of Capitol Hill.
The country supported Bush while he emerged as our fearless leader after Sept. 11, 2001, but slowly his supporters dropped like flies when he began playing the "axis of evil" card, giving empty threats as to who the real terrorists were and trying the relevance of the United Nations.
We canit allow Bush to commit injustices in our name. We will not allow him to spend our hard-earned dollars, sending our children to be killed while he and his members of Congress sit at home. When they rambunctiously yell, "Yee-haw," and rally around Bush, give them a parachute and tell them to yell "Bombs away" on their way down.
As taxpaying citizens, our voices, and those of our global counterparts, should be heard.
A recent Newsweek poll showed only 49 percent of Americans would support sending large numbers of ground troops into Iraq, and this number is going down.
The hundreds of thousands of activists who thronged the streets of Washington, Tokyo, Rome, Brussels, Berlin, London and Mexico City disapprove of Bushis "get him while youire hot" stance.
Bushis only vocal ally is Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, whose dossier claiming Iraqis supposed arsenal of nuclear weapons was labeled by critics as a "weapon of mass deception." The majority of British citizens are also against a preemptive attack. I guess Blair is following in big brotheris footsteps.
This call against war is not in support of Saddam Husseinis regime; instead, it is a call to gather all the facts before diving headfirst into a mass of uncertainty. The United States is singling out certain regimes for things others are guilty of as well. Itis because Bush has a vendetta against Saddam.
The innocent children and civilians of Iraq are suffering, no thanks to the depleted uranium generously donated by the United States during military operations against Iraq, or to the economic sanctions.
The U.N. Commission on Human Rights maintains that "sanctions cannot be used to deprive children ... even if the intended purpose of sanctions seeks to address other issues."
The Bush administration may not realize that Saddam is not suffering in agony with these sanctions. The same can go for the invasion of Afghanistan, where U.S. troops went to play hide and seek with Osama and friends and instead killed innocent civilians, by "accident" of course, and yet Osama bin Laden still canit be found. Looks like that CIA training came in pretty handy.
The United States is good at creating monsters, training them, providing weapons — biological and chemical — letting them loose and then coming after them years later, threatening them with being oh so vicious. You reap what you sow, and unfortunately, because of our governmentis sowing, we as citizens will reap the consequences.
It is time to lasso some sense into our war-happy stallion because, since the administration is busy lining its pockets, we need to make a difference.
Repeat after me: "No blood for oil."
Zaidi, a senior communication major,
To contact the
To contact other members