Bruins debate implications of Iraqi attack
By Shaun Bishop
Nov. 18, 2002 9:00 p.m.
On the same day U.N. weapons inspectors returned to Iraq,
thousands of miles away UCLA students debated the war-inducing
implications of their investigation.
More than 100 students came to Rolfe Hall to watch advocates for
both sides of the controversy discuss whether to invade Iraq.
Three members of the self-proclaimed
“pro-intervention” side of the argument engaged in a
verbal melee with three members of the “anti-war”
side.
The event was organized with coordination from the Undergraduate
Students Association Council and its Academic Affairs
Commission.
It was the first event of “Global Justice Week,” a
series of events this week put on by USAC and other student
organizations intended to educate students about issues regarding
global peace and justice.
The debaters were selected through an application process that
Academic Affairs Commissioner Chris Diaz said was to make sure
“we didn’t get people who weren’t going to offer
us depth.”
The debate began with opening statements from both sides,
followed by rebuttals from both sides to their opposition’s
arguments. Questions from the audience to the debaters and
concluding statements from the debaters wrapped up the session.
Sam Shimon Soleimany, a third-year linguistics student, argued
against war, saying, “The government isn’t taking on
its moral responsibility, that’s my job.”
Prior to the debate, many members of the audience seemed unsure
on their stance on the issue at hand.
Doug Taylor, a second-year physics student, said prior to the
debate he “doesn’t know too much about the
situation” and Richard Kan, first year graduate student in
Asian American Studies said, “I’m on the fence, leaning
toward (being) anti-war.”
Debaters arguing in favor of intervention said the United States
should invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein’s regime is in
violation of international law.
“If you allow this to continue, you are taking all that is
holy about international law and throwing it aside,” said
fifth-year European studies student Owen Paun.
Paun and his two companion panelists also argued that the
killings of Kurds in Iraq is unacceptable and must be stopped
through military intervention, if that’s what it comes
to.
Panelists on the other side of the podium arguing against war,
calling themselves “pro-peace,” stressed that military
action is not a good course of action and that it is not in the
best interest of the American people.
“This is not for us, this is not for Iraq,” argued
Yousef Tajsar, third-year political science and international
developmental studies student. “We want peace in the world,
not for Bush, for the people.”
Tajsar was critical of the opposing side’s view, saying,
“It’s the voice of the elite talking … it’s
dishonest.”
The two sides clashed for about an hour before moderator and
USAC Internal Vice President T.J. Cordero opened up the debate to
the audience, where listeners could ask questions of the
debaters.
Members of the audience asked all but a few questions of the
pro-intervention side, hitting on issues such as the implications
of terrorist activity if an invasion of Iraq occurs and about the
apparent lack of support from the international community.
Diaz said they came up with the idea for a debate because they
have traditionally done debates on important issues and because it
“provides a space where people can hear each other
out.”
The applications for the debate were handed out fourth week and
were advertised in political science classes and on Bruin Walk.
Other USAC-sponsored “Global Justice Week” events
include various speakers throughout the week and a concert Thursday
evening.
