Who are the Terrorists

STAFF EDITORIAL

PHOTO COURTESY KRT CAMPUS ONLINE

The horrors of war seem all too apparent amid the still lingering news of the Abu Ghraib tortures. Yet even after the official admission that there are no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq, United States forces might now be using this same rationale in targeting Iran for the next stage in the war on terror.

A Jan. 17, 2005 report by The New Yorker claimed that U.S. concerns over hidden weapons facilities in Iran sparked a series of reconnaissance missions during the past several months aimed at identifying sites for a possible air strike sometime this summer.

The White House vehemently denied the claim, although the U.S. has im-posed economic penalties on several Chi-nese companies who allegedly helped Iran with its atomic weapons program.

If the United States next targets Iran or another country, there must be a point where we begin to question the extent of our right to police the world.

By using the phrase “War on Ter-ror,” the United States appears highly hypocritical. The American Heritage Dictionary defines terror as “violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.” Under this definition the United States clearly falls in the terrorist category.

President Bush told John King of CNN that the propaganda peddlers had done a better job painting America as a place imposing its own government and religion on the world and that people weren’t hearing the truth of the matter although the president failed to mention what that was.

“Everybody deserves to be free,” Bush said emphatically. He did not however, conclude at what price and to what end?

The following day five car bombings in Baghdad claimed the lives of at least 26 people in an effort to block the upcoming Jan. 30 national election. Other violence was also reported north and south of the Iraqi capital.

While fighting for freedom sounds like a just cause, we must remember that we are imposing a way of life on a culture that is thousands of years old. Their traditions and customs have roots that reach far deeper than our own.

No matter what angle you’re looking from, one thing remains clear: the dictatorship is gone, and there are no weapons of mass destruction. The job is done. John Kerry told CNN, “We went in to rescue Iraq from Saddam Hussein, now we have to rescue ourselves from our own policy.”

A fog of incompetence and disregard has plagued the Bush administration’s command of this war. From the low morale of soldiers who don’t have armor plating on their vehicles, to Donald Rumsfeld’s remarks that “You don’t go to war with the army you’d like to have, you go to war with the army you’ve got.”

Rumsfeld’s statement makes the bold assumption that the war with Iraq was not only absolutely necessary, but also unavoidable and unable to be postponed.

After recent reports by the British Museum indicating that the U.S. presence in the ancient city of Babylon has caused substantial damage, people on all sides of the globe are questioning America’s convictions.

A recent BBC poll of 21,953 people in over 20 countries found that 58 percent said they feel George W. Bush’s re-election has made the world more dangerous. Traditional allies Germany, France, Britain and Italy as well as neighbors Canada and Mexico de-nounced current U.S. military policy.

By percentage, only India, Poland and the Philippines thought the world is safer with Bush as president. However, none of the countries polled supported contributing their troops to the war with Iraq.

According to a Jan. 19, 2005 Washington Post article, George Bush has suggested he will try to strike a different tone, from his relations with Democrats in Congress to his approach to the rest of the world. We as Amer-icans must hold him to it. Our country’s actions represent us all and choices made today may have everlasting consequences on our world tomorrow.

Smoking: A smoldering Issue

BY TIMOTHY DOLD
Contributing Writer

ROSALIND KWAN / GUARDSMAN

When I asked students if smoking should be banned on the main campus, I was surprised at some of the answers. As expected the students who smoked were against a smoking ban. After all, they are adults and it is their choice to smoke if they wish. As for the smoke possibly being offensive or harmful, the major-it replied, “Hey, it’s a big campus, you don’t need to stand next to me if you don’t like it” and others said, “It is in the open air after all.”

Surprisingly though, the non-smokers I spoke with were equally against the idea of a smoking ban on campus. They thought the idea was “ridiculous” and “unenforceable” ... perhaps even a bit extreme.

From a historical point of view, any form of prohibition has never been successful. In the past law-abiding citizens became smugglers and criminals, al-though this case is not as extreme, and on a much smaller scale, you can be sure the results would be less than favorable.

Here is the dilemma. How would this new law be enforced? Will the schools pay for anti-smoking security guards?

Consider a student, who has a perfect grade point average and is showing much promise. He decides to smoke as he runs from class to class, so he won’t be late. If smoking is banned he will have no way to satisfy his nicotine craving. Now, because he can’t smoke on campus, he must run off campus to smoke, run back to campus, and be late for class. This could damage his grades or overall academic performance. To avoid being late, he decides to smoke on his way to class. When the “smoke police” catch this student now, who is now a criminal, what should happen? What would the proper punishment be for such individuals, who are caught like children with their hands in the cookie jar? Fines that probably can’t be paid? Expulsion?

Most students and faculty members would like to have designated smoking areas outside of each building. This would allow non-smokers to avoid the smoke, and smokers to avoid being late for class.

But, like the saying goes, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

COMING IN

Faculty Poll

Have you ever had a Student answer their cell phone in class?

Yes: 86% (12 out of 14

No: 14% (2 out of 14)

Yes, I told them they were busted.”
Jessica Williams, social sciences

“No, thank the heavens, I have not ever had that happen. A student that inconsiderate would not be welcome in further classes.”
Ronald Johnson , English

“Yes, students have answered cell phones in class and also they use other electronic devices that should be thought about too. Music players, pagers, computers, etc.”
Diana Markham, physics

Quotation-marks

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.”

ON THE RECORD

What was your New Year’s resolution for 2005?

Donald Wilson

“I guess stay more focused and concentrated on my goals.”

Gustavo Fernadez

“To stop smoking weed."

Reisa Salonga

“I didn’t want to quit anything and didn’t want to start anything. So I didn’t make a resolution.”

Dominiquca Oats

“Do way better in school and transfer in August.”

Lizzy Karkosza

“Make up my mind between majors of medical biller or medical receptionist.”

Laconstance Shahid

“Basically to change inside and out to be a better person.”