Letter to the Editor

Re: Face the facts. . . most people support the war with Iraq.
I find it appalling that you would state public opinion polls as justification for discrediting the general consensus on campus that war against Iraq is ill advised. Right wing radicals now occupying our hallowed White House continue to cast Clinton as a “poll panderer,” yet akin to Karl Rove and, oh yes, Dubya himself, you have justified your stance solely on public opinion. Shame on you. As for the parallel your argument tried to discredit concerning the threat of North Korea and Iraq, nothing has seemed to me more irrationally stated and illogically derived.
Obviously, Dubya was aware that the knowledge of North Korea nuclear armaments would stall his coveted war resolution against Iraq. How do we know? Oh, he just conveniently withheld the information from Congress for twelve days. If it was such a non-issue, why do so?
The basic premise Dubya has given in his argument to attack Iraq is that they are deemed a threat to our security, in that they possess or have the potential to possess weapons of mass destruction. Yet, if we attack Iraq, it will be a much different war than in 1991. Rather than repelling an invasion, we are seeking “regime change.” Hussein, having nothing to lose in the event that the United States attacks to remove him from power, would use these very weapons we are trying to prevent him from using against our own soldiers. He will launch scuds at Israel like he did in 1991, except this time they will be infused with tons upon tons of chemical agents. And why not? The Republicans argue that they used them against the Iranians in the ’80s, so why wouldn’t they use them against us in combat? Since your argument likes polls so much, a new Poll published by Gallup shows the majority of Americans against war with Iraq if significant casualties are to be incurred.
Finally, this is not the first time an enemy of the United States has possessed or has had the potentiality of attaining nuclear armaments.
What makes Iraq, who does not even have nuclear weapons yet, such a threat? Assuming your argument that North Korea is not as much of a threat, which clearly is not the case, what makes Iran a lesser threat? They possess the ability to produce nuclear armaments as well and are the foremost sponsor of terrorism worldwide. Your argument does not hold up well to my light criticisms, so hopefully upon refinement you could achieve the impossible – justification for war against Iraq.
-Christian G. Wilson, President of College Democrats, is a junior majoring in political science and philosophy.