Letters

Cartoon unfair to NRA

I was very disappointed to see Jason Liu’s editorial
cartoon in Monday’s Daily Bruin (“D.C. Sniper
Equipment”). It makes me sick at heart to see a cartoon
directly equating National Rifle Association membership with serial
murder.

Ironically, the cartoon appears juxtaposed with Shirin
Voussoughi’s column, correctly reminding us not to
unfairly associate these murders with extremist Islam or the Muslim
community in general (“Associating D.C. sniper with al-Qaeda
justifies racism, unfounded alarm”).

Imagine the uproar if, instead of an NRA card, Mr. Liu had
chosen to feature a copy of the Noble Qur’aan, or even an
Iraqi passport. How disgusting would that idea be to him? Yet Mr.
Liu seems not to have seen anything amiss in making an equally
disgusting, insulting and insensitive equation in this
cartoon.

I use the word “equally” advisedly; the U.S. Islamic
population and the NRA membership are both variously estimated at
between three and four million.

Again, I find it ironic that The Bruin is simultaneously able to
remind us not to tar four million American Muslims with the brush
of a single murderer, yet on the same page turns around and tars
another four million Americans with it. And, come to think of it,
there is some overlap between the two. One of my very dear
Muslim friends is a card-carrying member of the NRA, and
he’s hardly likely to be the only one. 

I would like to invite The Bruin to retract the statement
implicit in the cartoon, and make an apology to its readership for
insulting our intelligence.

By way of placing this request in context, I would like to
disclose that I am a former college newspaper editor, a
registered Green Party voter, a gun owner, and I am not now nor do
I ever plan to be a member of the National Rifle Association.

Luis Felipe Morales Mechanical and aerospace
engineering

Destruction of Iraq’s weapons
necessary

In 1961 I was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to teach for one
year at Alhikma University in Baghdad, Iraq. After investigating
the policies of the Iraqi government, I concluded it was
politically too risky for me to go to Iraq. However, along with the
help of my Iraqi student at UCLA I continued to follow political
trends in their country.

Today, the policy of both the U.S. and English governments calls
for the abolition of an Iraqi stockpile of weapons of mass
destruction. This is largely because of Saddam Hussein’s long
and consistent record of extreme brutality toward the people of
Iraq and his neighbors. First, full inspection will be required and
secondly destruction of the stockpile is to take place, using force
if necessary.

Critics have argued this would mean preemptive action against
Iraq ““ of course it would, and should. It would be completely
irrational to wait until the weapons are used against others.
Secondly, critics have argued the stockpile should not be destroyed
until its planned use is imminent. This argument is equally
irrational because if the destruction is delayed until just before
the weapons are used it may well be too late to prevent their
use.

A possible rational argument against destroying this stockpile
is that it would never be used. Is this a chance that should be
taken in view of the fact that these weapons have been used in the
past against innocent people? Additionally, Hussein has proved
himself to be one of the most brutal men in the history of brutal
dictators. In terms of degree of brutality, he ranks with the
German Nazis. Admittedly, Iraq is of course much smaller than
Germany, but its weapons are far more powerful.

It is my hope that the editorialists of the Daily Bruin will in
the future offer a more comprehensive and rational analysis of the
threat posed by Iraq’s stockpile of weapons of mass
destruction. With their abolition, the sanctions could be lifted
and living conditions for the people of Iraq could be greatly
improved.

Theodore Andersen Anderson School of
Business