4
Tuesday, March 26, 1991 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
U.S. policy in Iraq
U.S. troops don't belong in Iraq's civil chaos; Bush's goal was met when Saddam left Kuwait
The Bush administration should stick to its guns and not use them again
against Iraq, as it has threatened to do if Saddam Hussein uses chemical weapons to quash the numerous civil uprisings in his country.
In a speech to anxious U.S. citizens after the Jan. 15 deadline for war in the gulf had come and gone, Bush reinforced his administration's purpose for attacking Iraq by saying, "The liberation of Kuwait has begun."
The government should stand by its original objective to free Kuwait, which it justified on the claim that Kuwait was a small, defenseless country being raped and pillaged by a fireman aggressor.
News reports have surfaced already that Saddam has used acid, napalm and chemical weapons to crush rebel forces.
The United States still controls the airspace above Iraq.
U. S. fighter pilots recently shot down an Iraqi plane.
U. S. and allied troops are positioned to conduct a second ground campaign.
The United States must not allow itself to be dragged into a civil war in Iraq. Kuwait is free. The United States accomplished its
It is understandable that the United States wants to maintain a presence in Iraq until a formal end to the war is reached, but the reported 100,000 U.S. and allied troops that are occupying 15 percent of Iraq must be diminished soon.
original mission. Now it must refrain from violently influencing events in the region.
Saddam has enough to keep him busy in his own country without waging another campaign against Kuwait. His forces have been depleted. The United Nations is pressuring him to pay war reparations and to destroy his chemical-weapons stockpiles.
Kurdish rebels control most of northern Iraq. Shiite Muslims are creating chaos in the south. Much of Iraq is obliterated. Hussein is weak.
If the United States' true purpose for entering into a war with Iraq was to liberate Kuwait and not to depose Saddam or stabilize the region in its favor, it must leave the region now that the job is done.
Considering Iraq's political condition, it could take months formally to end the war. U.S. forces must not be trapped in Iraq during this time. The longer they remain, the more tempting it will be for the United States to become involved in Iraq's problems.
Debbie Myers for the editorial board
Persian Gulf War
Allies should keep promises to pay costs of war
- romises. promises.
P Out of $54 billion promised war assistance from our allies, $25.6 billion has arrived.
An angry Congress, wielding its great power to suppress the Bush administration's protestations, has given an ultimatum: Pay the United States by April 15 or it will ban arm sales to its allies, which include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Germany, Japan and South Korea.
It was the only reasonable course of action, although some did not agree.
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney contends that the Middle East needs military weapons to promote peace in the region and to ensure continual stability and protection.
At the same time Bush said he intended to cut arms sales to the Middle East, he announced that he wanted the Export-Import Bank, a government agency, to underwrite up to $1 billion in foreign military sales by U.S. companies. White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater argued that the program did not conflict with Bush's goal of reducing the spread of arms to the Middle East.
"We're not talking about cutting off all arm sales," he said. "We're talking about a balance and a stability in the region . . . sometimes you've got to make reductions, sometimes you have to build up."
A build-up of weapons in Iraq, creating a Middle East superpower, is what embroiled the United States in the Middle East in the first place. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have requested a grand total of $19 billion for U.S. weapons. But, as of now, Saudi Arabia has delivered only $6.1 billion of the $16.8 billion it promised to pay for war reparations, and the United Arab Emirates has paid only half the $4 billion it pledged.
If they have the money to buy U.S. arms, they should use that money to help fulfill their promise and defray U.S. war costs.
And then there is Japan. Japan has paid $1.3 billion out of the $10.7 billion it promised
$1.5 billion out of the $1.67 billion it promised Japan, one of the world's leading industrial and trading nations, imports 65 percent of its oil.
It still receives U.S. military protection and aid under the mutual defense treaty. The United States is getting the short end of the stick.
Fair weather friends lose credibility, and in the long run breaking promises only will harm them. Congress had no choice but to take the action it did. Faced with our nation's large deficit and problems at home that demand immediate monetary attention, the United States should be able to rely on its allies' promises.
Jennifer Schultz for the editorial board
Heed the call
College students have a responsibility to recycle
This week, the KU community is presented with an excellent opportunity to step up its recycling efforts.
The Recycling Task Force is sponsoring Recycling Awareness Week, which began yesterday. The task force's intent through this event is to increase awareness and availability of recycling on campus.
Kris Gottschalk, co-chairperson of the task force, said the most common reason students did not recycle was a lack of convenience. To make recycling easier, the task force has peppered the halls of Wesco Hall with aluminum can recycling boxes. If the boxes prove successful, the task force will add them to other campus buildings.
Though the task force's work to increase
Since August, KU students and faculty have recycled 75,500 pounds of paper and 5,500 pounds of aluminum. Though these figures may seem great, consider that the United States generates an estimated 160 million tons of solid waste each year, most of which is recyclable.
the convenience of recycling is commendable, it should not have to go to such great lengths to get students to do what has become their environmental responsibility
Recycling awareness, or more appropriately, recycling responsibility, begins with college students. They are the ones who will inherit this world, and they should be made to take responsibility for it.
Melanie Matthes for the editorial board
...What is that Strange Noise?"
Language bans detrimental to free societies, individuals
Suppression of speech fails to change sentiments, feelings
I was watching TV the other day and this piece comes on CNN about Brown University expelling a student for the words the student chose. I think the gist of the issue stemmed from obscene and racist slurs by a student in a particularly articulate moment in class.
Since then there has been discussion about banning language that has been deemed inappropriate, offensive or lacking meaning. I have no idea what the specific punishments are or whether they involved washing out his mouth with soap. What I do know, and am compelled to tell you as a master of the obvious, is that this is inherently undemocratic.
I prefer to have all the cards on the table, all the dirty laundry hung out and everyone free to speak as they will. I am fortunate to have come to a university that feels the same way somewhat.
But no, you might say, rules of this kind are necessary to avoid situations such as the one we have here at KU, where discrimination manifests itself in events similar to that at Brown. This policy would decrease discriminatory language through fear of retribution.
I can't imagine what it would be like if I hadn't had access to all the different speakers I've heard here. Even harder to imagine is the difference a language policy would have made, if the people who I've
Tim Hamilton Staff columnist
Not. First of all, I think it's obvious that it doesn't necessarily follow that actual feelings of a person change just because he or she isn't allowed to express them. In the best-case scenario, this policy will result in more latent sexism and racism just as repression can result in deviation and perversion. And, in the worst case, thought control.
listened to hadn't been able to use exactly those words that they had.
Would the Rev. Louis Farrakhan,
Sergio Ramirez and Arkady Chevchenko have said what they said?
Would Hunter S. Thompson, Allen McCormick or William S. Burroughs even have been allowed on the premises?
Would Jello Biafra, Willie Brennan and Donald Woods have been here warning of the encroaching police state in this and other countries? Certainly there was enough of an armed group to keep Woods into sharing a mildly profane threat against the Both regime off-stage.
I'm also sure that the policy would accomplish its goal of decreasing derogatory comments (where would the letters section be?) with a corresponding effect of isolating, concentrating and reinforcing the pockets of true hatred. They're still there, but the picture is rosy.
Believe it or not, I've had discussions with students and professors that haven't been tempered one bit because of my sex, skin color or gender. Of course, I've had discussions that were influenced by these factors.
The former were, by far, much more informative. And, as a master of the obvious, I know that we are here to think, if not learn, even if that interferes with our studies (or our thin skin).
Language bans not only reinforce
'I think it's obvious that it doesn't necessarily follow that actual feelings of a person change just because he or she isn't allowed to express them.
the authoritarian/police state mentality that pervades our national institutions, but draws dangerously near to that philosophy that holds any specific acknowledgment of racial, gender, or orientation is discrimination per se.
I find the mentality behind such a control of language curiously similar to that which fostered the "support cultural diversity" buttons of years ago. We can learn to place faith in the ability of language to affect, if not dictate, reality.
I think it is obvious that this is not the case. You know, a rose by any other name, etc. Both "uses" of language were well intentioned; they attempted to contribute toward a goal, and they failed. Ever, I think both theories are invalid because of their attempt to equate language with reality.
I think that if a truly tolerant, eclectic society is to be realized, it will result from an environment where people from widely divergent populations of this planet (such as this campus) are encouraged, allowed and empowered to speak or write exactly what they wish — where every person's speech is recognized to be as appropriate, legitimate and significant as that of everyone else.
Tim Hamilton is a Lawrence student in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
KANSAN STAFF
CHRIS SIRON
Editor
RICH CORNELL
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
by David Rosenfield
Editors Business start-up
News. Tiffany Matthas Campus mgr. Sophie Whohne
Editorial. Tiffany Harness Regional sales mgr. Darnes Cremch
Planning. Holly M. Neuman National sales mgr. Jennifer Claxton
Campus. Jennifer Reynolds. Co-op sales mgr. Christine Musser
Pam Sollier Production mgrs. Rich Harbarger
Sports. Ann Sommerlath Kishenbarger Marketing director. Gail Ember
Photography. Meissna Unterberg Creative director. Chrisy Hals
Graphics. Jill Harrington Classified manager. Kim Crowder
Features.
AUDRA LANGFORD
Business manager
MINDI LUND
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas are required.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photocopied.
The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 113 Staffer-First Hall.
Sketch