IRAQ:U.S. troops need to stay and do their job

by Miles Harwell
Guardsman Staff Writer

The Vietnam War of the 1960's and 70's struck fear into the hearts of young men growing up in America. Just the thought of having their numbers called by the armed forces, and having to ship out shortly after was nearly bone chilling. Even though soldiers during that time may have been terrified, young people of the 21st century deal with a completely different Armed Forces system.

Today young Americans are willing to join programs training them to be involved with the Armed Forces such as J.R.O.T.C. that exist at many high schools in the United States. These programs promise students a chance at a better future and offer a sense of belonging for those who feel lost. People who pursue a career with the Armed Forces after high school are promised money for college and generally a chance to pursue another desired goal in life.

The thought of "What if a war breaks out" hardly ever crosses the mind of the young individual. But in my opinion, if you are man (or woman) enough to make the decision to get involved, you should be man (or woman) enough to stick with this decision, even if this does mean putting your life in danger.

If you sign up for the Army just to get something for free, what does that truly say about yourself as a person? Not much. The Armed forces should keep their people over there to make them stick to their commitment. True, there are people over there getting shot at and putting their lives at risk, but what did these people expect? They should've already realized this was a possibility when they signed up for the Armed Forces. If anything, it is their own fault, for not being conscious of the situation and the hostility that exists on that side of the globe towards the United States. The college money is obviously bait, and whatever fish are actually reeled in by this stupid plan should have to learn a lesson. They shouldn't have to die, but this is the situation that they put themselves in by trying to find an easy way out of an ordinary situation and getting tricked in the process. For being this gul-lible, these soldiers deserve to stay over there until the war is settled.

These people over there fighting are also our only hope in Iraq. If we take them out, this will establish a sense of weakness. If we move out of Iraq, then the United States is leaving itself open for another 9/11 incident.

Our soldiers are trained, and unlike soldiers in Vietnam, most of them are over there by choice. Whether they were tricked by the Armed Forces or not, they still made the decision themselves. Many people didn't even have that choice.

I know it may sound harsh, and in many ways, it is, but I have no sympathy for people who try to use the system to their advantage only to get used themselves by a higher authority. I'm just glad that I was smart enough to see through all of that stuff when they first tried to throw it at me, be-cause if that's the bait they- 're fishing with, this fish isn't going to bite, even if he's starving to death.

IRAQ: We have no right to be there

by Raina Makdissy
Guest Writer

Who has the right to place a value on another person's life? Who has the right to decide when laws should be followed and when they should be broken? Your friend? Your enemy? Well, in this case, our president, George W. Bush has decided that he has the right. His arrogant abuse of power is putting Americans and the rest of the world in jeopardy.

The Bush Administrat-ion's preemptive war on Iraq not only violates international law but also morality. It was estimated that at least 9,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war with another 20,000 civilians injured. A total of 422 American soldiers have died, 282 of those since Bush declared an end to major hostilities. Another 2,376 have been wounded. Secret-ary of Defense Rums-feld has testified that the war is costing America $3.9 billion dollars a month.

Our brave soldiers went to Iraq because they thought they were supporting human rights and putting an end to terrorism, but that is not what has happened. The U.S. is facing increased hostility from countries all over the world, including countries that were once our allies. Anti-Americanism is spreading and US troops are going to be the first to feel it.

The blatant hypocrisy that the U.S. now represents is fueling much of the anger and fear. Bush and his security council said the war was to eliminate "weapons of mass destruction", thus creating a "safer" world. This is a complete and utter lie. How can America invade countries in search of weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. has more of these weapons than any other country?

On what moral grounds can the United States demand that Iraq or any other country leave itself defenseless? To really eliminate the threat of a nuclear war, we need to get rid of all "weapons of mass destruction." Israel, Pakis-tan, India and, yes, the United States must dispose of their nuclear arsenals if they expect other countries to do the same. The singling out of Iraq is not only unjustifiable but against international law.

The entire war has been based on deception. It said Iraq had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, but none have been found. It said Iraq was obstructing inspections, yet the UN said access was without problems. It stated that Iraq and al-Qaeda were working to-gether, but no current links have been found. The tragic September 11 attacks were not caused by the people of Iraq. The Administration said that it was opposed to tyranny yet it ignores tyranny in places like Saudi Arabia because it serves the administration's goal of dominating of Middle Eastern oil.

Bring Them Home Now is a campaign run by veterans, peace activists, and soldier's families all working together to end this unjust war. These are all patriots of this great country who have realized the President Bush's deceptions. It is time to join their demands. The death toll of innocent Americans and Iraqis continues to accelerate. Let's "minimize" the damage and pull the troops out of Iraq now!

Time for us to get over ourselves: barbarism is not exclusive

Kurt Poeltl
Opinions Editor

Has there ever been a war where the enemy was not an assemblage of fanatical savages? It would seem that in war, the end justifies the propaganda. How many times in the lead up to the war in Iraq did President Bush proclaim that Saddam Hussein had tortured and murdered his own people (as if this kind of behavior was restricted?)

Has there ever been a conflict in our history that wasn't polarized, making us the world's savior and protector and the enemy as something less than human? Rag-heads, gooks, krauts, yellow-devils, red-devils, ... Do we sleep easier at night believing the enemy is so very different from us and that our motives are above reproach?

It's becoming increasingly clear that the new course in Iraq is to harass the civilian population into compliance. "This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them," Lt. Col. Steven Russell said about leveling houses suspected of sheltering the enemy. Can someone explain to me the difference of "reminding" civilians and "terrorizing" them, and how this fits into the whole "winning the hearts and minds" strategy? Every time an Apache helicopter blasts an apartment building to shreds in suspicious retaliation, our hypocrisy is equal to the "collateral damage" we inflict.

In the Vietnam era there was a place called My Lai where 250 women, children, and old men were rounded up and executed. Of course, this extermination by U.S. soldiers was hardly singular to that war or others. In July of 1950,on the edge of the No Gun Ri village, Korea, similar horrific acts were perpetrated by U.S. troops on unarmed families. Of course, one would be hard sought to find a war that didn't exacerbate even the broadest definitions of crimes against humanity.

During Bush's recent trip to Asia, he left Air Force One just long enough to compliment the Philippians on the democracy they have achieved with our help ­ holding it up as an archetype for Iraq. Absent from the speech was the fact that we came at the turn of the last century under false pretenses, committed mass genocide of 200,000 natives (luckily, we had some of T.R.'s Indian fighters to make short work of slashing and burning villages.) It was not until after WWII that we finally relinquished power. I'm not sure which scenario is more severe: that Bush can be that untutored or that he is utterly and shamelessly contemptuous of the facts and his audience.

The darker side of our nation's collective xenophobia rarely makes for polite conversation. Case in point: some of Hitler's best ideas about "improving" the human race may have been born right here in the U.S. of A. In 1924, his Mein Kampf held the United States immigration policy above all others.

In San Francisco Chronicle's Nov. 9, 2003 edition, Edwin Black makes a compelling argument that "coercive sterilization of some 60,000 Americans" prior to WWII was just one of the widely accepted and legal ways that our nation weeded out undesirables. California paved the way with nearly 10,000 sterilizations of mostly "bad girls."

The pseudo-science called Eugenics had supporters at some of our nation's best universities. Some doctors practiced "applied eugenics" or eugencide by neglecting newborn infants and mental patients. Eugenics was the cover used by the Nazi Party's overt racist tactics. Their practices were ably financed, in part, by American charities. In a 1927 Supreme Court decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "...society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind..." At the Nuremberg trials, at the end of the war, the Nazis used Holmes' argument in their defense.

Our self-righteousness runs so very deep. Will the United States continue to take innocent lives in Iraq for viciousness' own sake? Is it egocentrism that allows us to have such a rosy, short-term memory or is it just effective politicking?