OPINION
THURSDAY. MARCH 31.2005
WWW.KANSAN.COM
PAGE 5A
▼ CORPORATOCRACY
Curtain-call for Iraq war gets poor reviews for Bush
America's war in Iraq is now more than two years old.
STEPHEN SHUPE
sshupe@kansan.com
It's been a series of deceptions from the start. The deceit most bandied about these days is that we're bringing freedom and democracy to Iraqis. It's important to understand why that's not true, both for our sake and for theirs.
Any discussion of Iraq must begin with Saddam Hussein. In the 1980s, the Butcher of Baghdad was at war with Iran. The United States, his most powerful ally at the time, sent him samples of anthrax and bubonic plague, as well as American helicopters equipped with powerful bombs. Overseeing these shipments was Donald Rumsfeld, then the secretary of defense for President Reagan. In the private sector, Rumsfeld had invested in pharmaceutical and technological companies, both from which he stood to gain directly from the sales of bombs and biological agents to Saddam.
This is Act 1. Think of Iraq as a movie, with a shadowy cast of war profiteers as the stars. Cut to 1992; America's boy in Baghdad has gotten too big for his britches and has been removed from Kuwait. Paul Wolfowitz, then the U.S. ambassador to Jakarta, oversees the formation of a secret Pentagon policy directive, which states that America must engage in unilateral military actions to ensure "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil."
I know, nobody likes the "o" word. Instead of oil, think of money. Paul Wolfowitz certainly did: He sat on the board of directors for Northrop Grumman, an incredibly lucrative war contractor.
The entire cast was assembled after the election of President Bush. There was Dick Cheney — former president of Halliburton — as vice president, and Rumsfeld — consultant for Betchel — again as secretary of defense. Both of these companies were among the list of biggest war profiteers of 2004. There was Wolfowitz — now the president of the World Bank — and Richard Perle, Bush's Pentagon chairman until 2003. Perly worked for the defense contractor Trieme.
After Sept. 17, the Project for the New American Century made the case for "American world leadership." This organization represents America's neo-conservatives, who believe in global free markets.
So this is the real genesis of the war in Iraq: War profiteers and nationalists coming together to expand markets. From this, the administration's ideals of fighting terror and spreading
freedom must be viewed as a smoke screen.
But what if the war actually did bring democracy to Iraq? What if the goal of privatizing Iraq's economy in the interest of corporate America failed?
First, consider that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the invasion, according to the British medical journal The Lancet, and coalition forces have killed far more Iraqis than the insurgents. Suppose you're a guy and you commit date rape. The girl gets pregnant and she raises a wonderful child. Would we attribute this success story to you, the rapist? Such is the logic of the war bringing democracy to Iraq.
Secondly, the administration will never let go of its plans for privatization. It has proven this time and again for two years now.
If democracy ever comes to Iraq, it will be a great success story for Iraqis, and a great failure for the administration. Unfortunately our president, with his hardest of hearts and greediest of intentions, still stands in the way. Naomi Klein reported in The Nation that Iraqis overwhelmingly voted on the Jan. 30 ballot to end the occupation yet. Bush insists we shouldn't set an "artificial timetable."
Up until January 2004, the administration opposed the kind of one-person, one-vote elections we saw in Iraq two months ago. Iraq's constitution was originally supposed to be written by an American-backed group of Iraqi exiles. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, one of the real heroes of this story, denounced the plan and demanded free elections. By the beginning of 2004, the administration had no choice: Sistani had mobilized hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets of Basra and Baghdad. The jig was up.
♦ Shupe is an Augusta graduate student in journalism.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Coulter's, and audience's, shenanigans equally embarrassing to University
When liberal hecklers loudly refuted her comments, she admonished that "the sexual orientation classes are down the hall."
I attended the Vickers Memorial lecture featuring Ann Coulter knowing I was going to disagree with most of her comments because I am a liberal, but without the intention of feeling shocked and disgraced with her blatant disrespect for many in the University community.
Although I do not agree with the hecklers challenging her discourse, I was taken aback that she would resort to slurs about someone's sexual preference to respond to an opposing view. In her regular lecture text, she made irreverent comments about minorities including "brown man."
Kelly Vincent Olathe freshman Chemical engineering
Coulter misses point of own lecture by opting for insults and zealotry
By the time the question and answer session began, the majority of people with opposing viewpoints had been "escorted" from the room, clearly diminishing the possibility of freedom of expression. I support the Vickers family's goal of providing an open forum "to debate or discuss subjects vital to maintaining a free political and market economy," so I was appalled that they should select — and the University allow — someone with such little respect for diversity, in sexual orientation, race, gender and thought.
Even more disturbing than her speech was the audience's reaction: Through cheers they encouraged Ms. Coulter to continue her insensitive attacks on "liberal" audience members. As a woman who advocates freedom of speech, I also found it unpardonable that Ms. Coulter urged several College Republicans to quiet or remove those who were challenging her.
The purpose of the Vickers Memorial Lecture Series is to debate or discuss subjects vital to maintaining a free political and market economy. And through all of the mocking, denigration, belittlement and constant combativeness of Ann Coulter's comments and remarks, lost sight of that purpose. In fact, the talk was anything but a debate about free markets and politics. Coulter's talk was chockfull of name-calling, logical fallacies, euphemisms, and for lack of better wording, scapegoating.
Her perspectives on political and market economies, or lack thereof, were truly one of a written author and prominent person of society. I think it was very improper and for there to be some kind of redress and reprisal to both the students and faculty of the University.
I thought that there would be some kind of class and taste brought to an academic setting such as the University. Both Coulter and members of the audience did not respect the opinions of the opposition. It was extremely inappropriate for an intellectual collegiate lecture series to put on such an ultra-conservative show with Ann Coulter as the cheerleader. Her fanaticism and zealotry reached a peak, when she told members in the audience, to leave and join the sexual orientation seminar.
Michael Aghayan Kansas City freshman Political science
BEELER'S PERSPECTIVE
Nate Beeler/THE EXAMINER
CITIZEN OF THE WORLD
Same sex couples should see pathetic state of marriages
There is a marriage fever in America. Everybody wants to get married. The mother asked the little girl "What do you want to do when you grow up?" And the little girl said, "I want to get married."
This is the dream of girls in America. They go through life waiting for the moment they are going to get married.
JULIA MELIM COELHO
jcoelho@kansan.com
Girls I have met here talk about marriage as if it were necessary, as though marriage was something you have to do at some point in life.
What they did not consider was that the possibility of not getting married is not that bad.
Women have been fighting to be dissociated to the marriage institution and seen as more independent individuals since the 1960s. Many girls still think marriage is the commodity that brings happiness.
Now even same-sex couples want to conform to the traditional institution of marriage while women are fighting to be more independent, same-sex couples are fighting to get married.
Marriage is not hip. Gay couples were hip because they had non-stereotyped relationships that worked better than the traditional roles played by regular couples. They should not try to conform to old stereotypes, like marriage. Marriage has failed in our society.
If same-sex couples realized what was involved in marriage, they might not fight for it. People should be careful in fighting for something that they could regret later.
I would say same-sex couples should be happy that they are not allowed to get married. It is not a disadvantage, it is a benefit.
They should do some research on divorce rates in America. According to the Divorce Reform Web site, about 50 percent of marriages end in divorce.
If women and men were not allowed to get married, they would save so much grief, so much money in divorce paperwork and so much hassle to split the assets.
Not to mention the money the government would save. According to the same Web site, the United States spends
about $35.3 billion each year in divorces. All this money could be used for education, health and social security. We should just stop the marriages to avoid the divorces.
Same-sex couples could have the perfect formula of happiness: Independent relationships without the commitment of marriage. Now they are fighting to get what has destroyed most relationships on earth: marriage.
In fact, nobody should be able to get married. On April 5, when Kansas votes about the same-sex marriage ban, they should include, "Marriage is the union between one man and one woman, and it should never be allowed in any circumstance because it is the greater source of unhappiness in America these days."
Then I would vote for it. But banning marriage for same-sex couples is not enough. They should ban it for everybody.
If marriage is banned for everybody, when the mother asked her daughter what she wanted to do when she grows up, she would still say "I want to get married."
But then, the mother would say, "I am sorry, darling, but now marriage is illegal." And then the girl would reply "Oh; OK, then I will go to law school." And then all couples could live happily ever after.
- Melin Coelho is a Rio De Janiero, Brazil, sophomore in film and journalism.
▶ TALK TO US
Andrew Vaupel, editor
864-4810 or avaupel@kansan.com
Donovan Atkinson, Misty Huber, Amanda Kim Stairrett and Marissa Stephenson
managing editors
864-4810 or editor@kansan.com
Steve Vockrodt
Laura Francoviglia
opinion editors
864-4924 or opinion@kansan.org
Ashleigh Dyck, business manager
884-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Danielle Bose, retail sales manager 864-4358 or advertising@kansan.com
Mealcim Gibson, general manager and news adviser:
864-7867 or mglison@kansan.com
Jennifer Weaver, sales and marketing adviser
894-7668 or jweaver@kansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
David Archer, Viva Bolova,
John Byerley, Chase Edgerton,
Wheaton Elkins, Ryan Good,
Paige Higgins, Matt Hoge, John Jordan,
Kyle Koch, Dou Lang, Kevin McKernan,
Mike Mostafa, Erica Prather,
Erick Schmidt, Devin Sikes, Gaby Souza,
Sara Sacht and Anne Waltmer.
SUBMISSIONS
The Kanaan welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni.
The Kanaan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions.
For any questions, call Steve Vockred or Laura Provocignia at 864-4924 or e-mail opinion@kansan.com.
General questions should be directed to the editor at editor@kansan.com.
LETTER GUIDELINES
Maximum Length: 200 word limit
Include: Author's name and telephone number; class, hometown (student); position (faculty member); phone number (will not be published)
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
Maximum Length: 650 word limit
Include: Author's name; class, home-
town (student); position (faculty mem-
ber); phone number (will not be pub-
lished)
Also: The Kansan will not print guest columns that attack another columnist.
SUBMIT TO
Kansan newroom
111 Stuair-Flint Hall
1435 Jayhawk Blvd.
KS, 6045 8249
(785) 864-4810
oplion@kansan.com
Free for All
Call 864-0500
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Standerous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com.
This just in: there are now two things visible from space the great wall of China, and the chalk outside of Wescoe.
+
Professor Shaffer, please curve the test grade.
I just learned how to win an argument: either insult the person you're arguing with, or go on some irrelevant tangent. Thanks, Ann Coulter.
To the librarians who came to the Ann Coulter lecture,
thanks for being rude and embarrassing our campus.
ResNet owes us gas money for having to drive around Lawrence looking for a wireless internet connection because ours doesn't work in the dorms.
Someone needs to remove Ann
South Asia feeding to the
Coulter's feeding tube.
I just got done listening to Ann Coulter, and now I thirst for blood.
I can't wait to meet you, Mr. Super Mario Chalmers.
Porn on the cob.
4x
)