Causes of war, protesters ’ sincerity, abortion debated
‘Operation Baby
Kill’ an illogical
analogy to the war
In response to Jerry Kreps’ letter
(DN, Jan. 21), it doesn’t surprise me
that an anti-choice advocate would
use such a violent phrase as “Opera
tion Baby Kill” todescribe a woman’s
right to choose. “Operation Baby Kill”
is a strongly irrational and distorted
analogy to Operation Desert Storm.
Kreps’ analogy serves to illustrate the
anti-choice camp’s desperate attempts
to justify their views. Kreps’ illogical
reasoning and vague support against
choice is clear when he expresses his
views through such an analogy.
It seems more justifiable to ask:
Why does President Bush proclaim
Sunday as National Human Life
Sanctity Day when we are bombard
ing an inhabited country? This ques
tion exhibits the same kind of para
doxical mishmash that most people
accept. We argue that reproductive
choice for women is an issue of its
own, not an issue to be compared w i th
the gulf war. Kreps’ letter is a fine
example of the kind of opinionated,
illogical, emotional babble that can
only serve to confuse people about
uic simple question wnetner me gov
ernment should control any individu
al’s personal choices.
Mary Samson
senior
speech communication
Eric Petersen
junior
general studies
Fighting necessary
because U.N., U.S.
rights in jeopardy
As the war strike began, so did the
protesting. I agree everyone is en
titled to their own opinion, but how
do their morals come about?
Our men and women from this
country are not only fighting for oil.
There are many other factors involved.
In my opinion, Saddam’s aggression
against the people in the Middle East
is the biggest and most important.
These military persons committed
themselves to fighting for the free
dom and rights of the United States
and the United Nations when they
signed with their particular choice of
the armed forces.
When Saddam entered Kuwait and
killed innocent people of that coun
try, he put the freedom and rights of
the United Nations in jeopardy.
People across the United States
should realize how great a country we
do live in. President Bush is doing
what needs to be done. Just as we had
to stop Hiller years ago, we, as a
unified and supportive country, also
must stop Saddam.
I had hoped, like many others, that
this crisis could have been stopped
peacefully. Saddam left us no choice
but to attack. Negotiations were going
nowhere. If we had given in, there is
no telling what Saddam would be
terrorizing now. I have family in Saudi
Arabia and pray everyone comes home.
However, I fully support the war and
each and every effort made by those
individuals who have volunteered their
services to fight for all of our free
doms.
People need to think of our past
(Hitler, Mussolini) and think of what
Saddam could be doing if we hadn’t
. rTTrrini JO ^« tesy not to condemn those that I and
LETlERS JHE EDITOR - many others so highly respect.
auacicea. uo you support letting
Saddam terrorize innocent people?
Becky Savage
sophomore
elementary education
War rhetoric
must be examined
by U.S. people
Our government has seen fit to
wage war against another sovereign
nation. President Bush and Congress
have decided to take the lives and
existences of thousands of people,
and destroy them — blow them to
pieces. Why? Why has our govern
ment taken it upon itself to start this
vile and illegitimate war?
We the people of the United States
have been told that the war is for
Kuwait’s freedom, for oil, for our
way of life, to help end our current
economic recession and to show
Hussein we’re the boss. What is the
Uuth?
The truth is that this war is just one
more effort by our government to
spread its imperialist claws out to the
Middle East. It cares little about
Kuwait’s freedom and self-determi
nation. It has been our government’s
termination worldwide as proven by
our invasion of Vietnam, subversion
of Chile, support of the white minor
ity government in South Africa, inva
sion of Panama and Grenada and denial
of the legitimate struggle of the Pal
estinians to reclaim their stolen home
land, only to mention a few.
It may well be true that oil is
partially the cause of the war, but it is
a foolish cause. We already know that
we must cut down our oil consump
tion if our Earth is to survive as a
livable planet, so let us spend all the
military money and energy on safe
energy alternatives instead of killing
thousands of innocent people, includ
ing U.S. troops.
Our economy does need help, but
a war is hardly the thing. Quick fixes
have got us where we arc today. In
stead of spending energy on war, our
government needs to do some heavy
thinking to get us out of this reces
sion. As for showing Hussein who’s
boss — what exactly are we showing
him? That our missile is bigger than
g
1
2
>•
i
0
|
1
I
CD
his? He had historical reasons for
annexing Kuwait, and while these
don’t excuse his violent actions, they
certainly don’t excuse ours. Peace
talks and compromise would seem to
be better lessons to teach than retali
ation and violence.
So, a war is being fought in the
Middle East — caused by our heart
less imperialism. Our government
wants a permanent military base there
to keep an eye on our oil interest and
return to the United States the throne
of world king and lawmaker. Bush is
seeking a “New World Order,’’ a term
he has used over and over again since
gaining office. But the United States
will never reclaim moral, intellectual
or economic leadership in today’s
world. The United States lost those
roles long ago. All it can do is reassert
itself as the “biggest bully on the
world bloc.”
Re-examine your thinking if you
support this war. Our brains have
been clouded with cold-war rhetoric
and Americana dogma. Stop U.S.
imperialism and bring the troops home
alive now!
Nell Eckersley
junior
world studies
Anti-war activists
should back U.S.
or move to Iraq
First of all, I would like to say
thank you to Vicky Anderson for
sharing her mother’s letter with DN
readers (Jan. 18). Vicki, I pray for
your mother and all others involved
in the gulf.
Unfortunately, I can’t just end on
that note. I am very aggravated with
what I am seeing on this campus. As
a young American college student, I
can’t believe some of the unapprecia
tive people who walk the campus
sidewalks with signs in their hands
proclaiming that what the U.S. sol
diers are doing is useless. People like
that infuriate me. I have a friend over
in the gulf whose letters show me that
he knows why he is there and that he
is proud to serve his country. The
people with signs in their hands are
insulting my friend, Anderson’s mother
and thousands more.
If “these people” are against the
war that is their right, but if their
protest insults thousands of good
Americans, there needs to be more
consideration taken. Supporting a
positive cause has always brought
people together, but these people
holding protest signs are negative. If
there were different signs that said
“we support you,” America would
become the strongest country in the
world. However, its strength wouldn’t
be militarily; it would be in the hearts
and minds of the people. A country
with confident people will always
survive and isn’t survival a key ele
ment to a country?
To achieve the element I have
mentioned above, we must support
our soldiers and, in order to do this,
we must also support our country. In
other words, what I am saying is that
sign holders are being anti-Ameri
can. If this is the case, maybe try out
another country where there aren't
soldiers trying so hard to protect you.
I really don’t see you people improv
ing our country by holding signs, so
just leave.
In fact, maybe you should move to
Iraq where there is no freedom of
speech and you would be killed for
insulting your people and your coun
try. It seems strange to me that you
people don’t feel guilty for holding a
sign that condemns people who are
willing to die for you. If you don’t
feel any guilt, at least hav&the cour
Craig Deaver
junior
speech and history
Revival of ’60s
seen in attitude
toward gulf war
Is some of the protest against the
war in the gulf a fad? Before ihe start
of this conflict in early August, a
trend was starting to show. This trend,
although not as psychedelic as the
1960s, is reoccurring in clothing styles,
attitudes (as seen in letters about
vegetarianism on Earth Day) and even
hairstyles that have been getting
slightly longer. Most recently, this
’60s attitude has been seen toward the
war with Iraq. 1 can understand why
this more liberal ’60s trend has reoc
curred after the conservative, self
serving ’80s.
I pray for peace and hope our troops
will be home soon. I am not against
peaceful protest, because I feel it is
one of our great American rights. I
just hope that all of those who protest
are informed and are not following a
reoccurring ’60s trend or that older
generations are not trying to relive
their past in this conflict.
Tim Spitzenberger
freshman
chemistry
If you thought that finding a color
Macintosh system you could afford
was just a dream, then the new,
affordable Macintosh LC is a dream
come true.
The Macintosh LC is rich in color.
Unlike many computers that can
display only 16 colors at once, the
Macintosh LC expands your palette
to 256 colors. It also comes with a
microphone and new sound-input
technology that lets you personalize
your work by adding voice or other
sounds.
Like every Macintosh computer, the
LC is easy to set up and easy to master.
And it runs thousands of available
applications that all work in the same,
consistent way-so once you've learned
one program, you're well on your way
to learning them all. The Macintosh LC
even lets you share information with
someone who uses a different type of
computer-thanks to the versatile Apple
Superdrive, which can read from and
write to Macintosh, MS-DOS, OS/2, and
Apple II floppy disks.
l ake a look at the Macintosh LC and
see what it gives you. Then pinch
yourself. It's better than a dream-it's a
Macintosh.
( ' 'I
For more information,
contact the
CRC Computer Shop
University Bookstore
Lower Level Nebraska Union
472-5785
Hours: 8am-5pm
V___1/
The Macintosh LC
