Armed and dangerous
_Saddam has proven he can’t be trusted
JOSH MOENNING is a
sophomore advertising
and political science
major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist
After observing a week chock
full of student protests, hasty pleas to
prevent another Vietnam in the
Middle East and unfounded criti
cisms of “hard-core” conservative
military types, I found myself asking
a couple questions.
For example: How did the United
States get to be the bad guy in this
* unfolding saga in the sand? Where
were all the protests and outcries
when Saddam was busy executing
his own people and experimenting
on them with chemical weapons?
Why would Saddam be willing to
carry this ordeal out to possible U.S.
military intervention unless he really
had something to hide in those
palaces?
It is my personal belief that those
protesting and decrying possible mil
itary action against Saddam are look
ing at the big picture with very
blurred vision.
Innocent human life, at any time
from conception to death, and at any
place in the world from Baghdad to
Baltimore, is precious, valuable and
should be cherished.
This is why I believe that the U.S.
should take Saddam out.
Hear me out. The Iraqi dictator
has shown time and time again that
he holds absolutely no regard for any
life but his own. Saddam has system
atically led his people to long,
bloody wars, has murdered thou
sands of his fellow Iraqis, including
members of his own family and has
shown an insatiable desire to manu
facture any kind of weapon of mass
destruction he can get his hands on.
Casualties are a part of any mili
tary action. It is a tragic and sorrow
ful fact. But how many future lives
could be saved by putting an end to
Saddam’s bloodthirsty regime now,
before he is able to murder any more
of his own people or develop any
more weapons of mass destruction?
Saddam’s past indicates that if
allowed to stay in power, he will only
continue to grow more murderous,
more deceitful and more trouble
some for not only his own country,
but also for the Middle East and die
rest of the world.
Saddam Hussein’s whole life has
been stained in blood. As a young
man in the 1950s, he participated in
numerous coups and countercoups to
rid Iraqi government of Baath Party
opposition. He was sentenced to
death for an assassination attempt,
but escaped by fleeing to Syria. He
was arrested in 1964 for attempting
to overthrow the ruling Iraqi presi
dent. Saddam played a major role in
a devastating revolution in 1968, and
since has manipulated numerous
power grabs to become the sinister
authoritarian he is today.
The most chilling episodes of
Saddam’s past, however, come from
his frequent purges as a ruthless dic
tator. Graham Fuller, an expert on
the Middle East with the Rand think
tank, described Saddam’s leadership
as “the most unspeakable regime in
the history of the modem Middle
bast.
He goes on to say in an article in
a Nov. 1997 issue of U.S. News and
World Report, “Saddam kills on the
hint of suspicion, which is one of the
main reasons he is still in power.”
Indeed, according to the U.S.
State Department Iraq Report on
Human Rights Practices for 1997,
more than 2,000 political opponents
of Saddam were executed in that year
alone. The State Department also
notes “reports suggest that far more
people were executed merely
because of their association with an
opposition group or in an effort to
clear out of the prisons anyone with a
sentence of 15 to 20 years or more.”
There have also been a great
number of disappearances of those
who have openly opposed Saddam’s
regime. Amnesty International
places the number of these disap
pearances at more than 100,000
throughout the Hussein era.
In addition to the atrocities
Saddam performs on his own people,
he has repeatedly waged war against
neighboring countries, first Iran in
the 1980s, and then Kuwait in the
early 1990s. He has shown his capa
bility to use chemical weapons in
these wars and against some of his
own rebellious countrymen.
ABC News has recently reported
that “despite what the international
community has done to try to keep
weapons of mass destruction out of
Saddam’s hands, his arsenal of bio
logical and chemical weapons is
impressive.”
In fact, Newsweek reported in a
Nov. 1997 issue that “U.N. inspectors
have established that Iraq produced
some 8,000 liters of anthrax spores
in the ’80s - enough, by some esti
mates, to kill every person in the
world. Saddam’s forces also manu
factured 20,000 liters of botulinum
toxin... and packed much of it into
warheads.”
Alan Dacey, a member of the
U.N. Special Commission
(UNSCOM) responsible for arms
inspection in Iraq, in the same Nov.
1997 issue of Newsweek questioned
why the American inspectors were
ordered by Saddam out of Iraq
last November. He stat
ed “UNSCOM has
never received full
cooperation from the
Iraqi regime. On
some inspection missions
we’ve had to wait several
hours because the
Iraqis supposedly
couldn’t find the keys
to certain sites we
needed to enter.
“We have been
denied access to facili
ties even as our air sur
veillance showed a team
of trucks going out
the back entrance....
We have seen Iraqi
officials burning doc
uments and throwing
the embers into a river.”
So what can we take out of
all of this? Some people, includ
ing the student protesters, seem
to think that U.S. military
intervention in Iraq would be
an act of oppression by a
nation that wishes to further
punish the Iraqi people.
It is my belief, though, that
this thinking is the very essence
of irrationality. Allowing Saddam to
stay in power and add to his stockpile
of biological and chemical weapons
will only lead to more Iraqi civilian
deaths and possible worldwide
destruction. It seems much more
humanitarian to me to successfully
rid the Iraqi people of the totalitarian
that has brainwashed and taken
advantage of them for years.
Removal of Saddam may not be
easy, but it is likely that strategic and
carefully executed military strikes
meant to remove Saddam from
power would save countless lives and
prevent further war
in the future.
The bot
tom line is
that we
will
have to deal with him sometime. He
has shown that he simply will not go
away. The question asked by great
former President Ronald Reagan so
many years ago, “If not us, who? If
not now, when?”, should also be our
attitude toward the termination of
Saddam’s tired regime.
Sen. Arlen Specter offered words
of wisdom in his statements
Monday: “We’ve had a lot of experi
ence with Saddam Hussein. He does
not keep his word. That’s the reason
the only answer is to remove Saddam
Hussein from power.”
Hopefully, people are listening.
-
Melanie Falk/DN
l i
Gender days
Americans should adopt Men’s and Women’s holidays
KATERYNA OVCHARENKO
' is a freshman English
major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
My high school American
teacher, a Peace Corps volunteer
who came to Ukraine for two years,
was astonished on hearing that we
celebrate Men’s Day and Women’s
Day.
“Yes,” we said, “we really do cel
ebrate these days annually.”
Celebration of Men’s Day and
Women’s Day became a tradition
during the existence of the Soviet
Union. I would like to talk about
than today because this is almost the
exact time we celebrate them.
Let me start first with Women’s
Day (please don’t see any discrimi
nation of men in it - this holiday just
started earlier).
You must be dead tired of my
“history lessons” already, but the his
tory of the holiday began almost 140
years ago.
It was March 8,1857. Hundreds
of women workers in textile factories
in New York came to die streets of
the city to strike against the long
working day, low wages and inhu
mane working conditions. Being one
of the first protests organized by
women, obviously it was dispersed
by police. Nevertheless, 53 years
later, 15,000 women were marching
down the same New York streets,
demanding almost the same as the
women did half a century ago. In
addition, they were demanding the
end of child labor and new women’s
voting rights.
That action also took place on
March 8, but in 1910.
In May the same year; the
Socialist Party of America decided to
celebrate annual National Women’s
Day on the last Sunday of February.
The next year, the holiday was sue
cessfully celebrated in die United
States, and soon Europe, too, began
celebrating Women’s Day on the last
Sunday of February.
The next landmark event was
also in 1910, when Clara Zetkin (a
German socialist), at die meeting of
Women Socialist International in
Copenhagen, proposed celebrating
an International Women’s Day to
mark the strike of American women
textile workers. This proposal was
accepted, but certain dates were not
discussed.
The celebration of Women’s Day
came to Russia in 1917, though this
one had nothing to do with the
Bolshevik Revolution. Russia cele
brated this day on Feb. 23. (At that
time Russia used die Julian calendar
and, according to die Georgian cal
endar, widely used in Europe, it was
the March 8.)
In 1977 the General Assembly of
United Nations announced the cele
bration of an official Day for
Women’s Rights and International
Peace.
In the Soviet Union it became one
of the most important holidays of the
year: no school, no work - everything
was closed! It became our national
holiday, and the idea of the day of
women’s rights erased with time. The
International Women’s Day became
simply the “Eighth of March.”
It’s a very nice holiday; I can say
that, as I’m a female. All the male
citizens care so much for the oppo
site sex on this day, that in most fam
ilies men even cook and do all the
housework before and after the
Eighth of March. Men don’t just give
presents and flowers, they show their
appreciation and care in every deed,
even when they wash dishes.
It’s another.story with Men’s Day.
It’s not even a story; it’s completely
nothing to talk about, really.
The Day of the Army was estab
lished after World War II and was
celebrated on Feb. 23 by all die mili
tary mot serving in the army and
getting ready to serve there. It
reminds me of the beginning of
Women’s Day in Russia- the same
Feb. 23, only according to the new
Georgian calendar. Later this holiday
developed into a national holiday as
well and received a nonofficial name
of “the Men‘s Day” (because every
man had to serve in die army for two
years!). We usually call it “the
Twenty-third of February.”
2 personally think men were just
envious that only women had their
holiday and they had to give women
presents!
After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, die tradition of celebrating
these holidays remained in each
republic. In some newly independent
states, like Ukraine for example, they
tried to change the date of the cele
bration of Army Day, but it was a
pitiiul attempt to ruin this old tradi
tion. The holiday belonged to the
twenty-thud of February and no
other day couldbe the Day of Army!
The Eighth of March is coming
soon; it’s not too late for America to
celebrate it. Remember, it's an inter
national holiday. Men, feel free to
congratulate women you care about
Give flowers, smiles, presents and
your love. ILet diem feel themselves
as queens, though it's not necessary
to have a certain day for it
Do it every day - the spring is
coming.