Letters to the Editor

Steve Lavin bids farewell to UCLA

I began coaching at UCLA in 1991. As this season winds down, I
want to take a moment now to tell you how much I have appreciated
the opportunity during these past 12 years to teach so many
outstanding young men and to work cooperatively with our faculty,
staff, alumni friends and most importantly the students. I have
always been proud to represent UCLA basketball and UCLA, and I
share your sense of pride in one of the world’s great
universities.

After seven years, I will always remember the joys, challenges
and ironies I experienced here. During the previous six years our
teams enjoyed a series of successful seasons and a very strong
tournament record. During this season, however, the results on the
scoreboard haven’t always reflected our efforts; yet we will
continue to play hard unitl the final buzzer of the last game.

With hard work and dedication, cooperation and competition,
victory and defeat, college sports continue to provide our
student-athletes with understanding, resilience and constructive
values that will serve them well in careers and in family life. As
a teacher/coach at UCLA, I’ve experienced genuine
satisfaction in seeing our players mature, and I’m grateful to have
had been part of this important learning process. I value most the
lasting friendships I’ve formed at UCLA, and I remain optimistic
about the future of the program.

Steve Lavin Former head coach, UCLA men’s
basketbal

France is hypocritical

The editorial board was wrong in claiming that protesters only
object to French opposition concerning the war (“Vive la
France,” March 13).

Many other countries and important figures are in opposition to
the war, but have not been the recipient of such protests. The
reason the French have been targeted is their hypocrisy, as well as
their supposed moral superiority.

Many critics claim that the United States wants to topple Saddam
Hussein for Iraqi oil. This is merely a theory; there is no actual,
physical proof that the main goal of the United States is to assume
control of Iraqi oil reserves. However, France’s interest in
Iraqi oil is far more obvious. The French want to halt the
overthrow of Hussein, because Hussein’s regime owes them
billions of dollars and has entered into lucrative oil exploration
contracts and trade agreements. Everyone seems to believe that the
French are moral objectors who are abhorrent to war, but that is
not the case. They want a brutal dictator to stay in power, because
he owes them money and allows them access to oil.

Furthermore, it was the French who sent their scientists into
Iraq to build them a nuclear reactor at Osirak that was capable of
producing weapons-grade plutonium. Thankfully, the Israelis
destroyed it in 1981, setting the Iraqi nuclear arms program back
at least 10 years.

Perhaps now you know why the protesters poured out French
wine.

Marc Levy Fourth-year, mechanical
engineering

Despite France, war must go on

I am not too surprised by the March 13 editorial, “Vive la
France.” The editorial simply confirms what we already know:
that The Bruin and others of the far-left are simply
anti-American.

The most blatant statement that the editorial made was saying
that it was “understandable” that France opposes war
because of oil contracts in Iraq. I have never heard The Bruin
declare that anything the United States allegedly does for oil is
legitimate.

Quite the opposite, the far-left usually claims that the United
States acts wrongly because of oil. This double standard makes
explicit the hypocrisy of the left. It is assumed that other
countries are always righteous and act for solely noble reasons,
and that the United States, particularly under President George W.
Bush, is the evil warmonger.

Despite what The Bruin attempts, and fails, to make us believe,
it is France and the other anti-war countries that support a
mass-murdering madman for their own personal gain. Both Russia and
France have heavy interests in Iraqi oil and are owed huge debts by
the regime. These contracts and debts owed would change if Saddam
Hussein’s regime were out of power. France is believed to
have sold military components to Iraq over the past decade in
violation of the U.N. resolutions.

Why is French domination considered no big deal, while the
United States’ attempt to neutralize a threat of chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons in the hands of a tyrant who calls
America the “Great Satan” is considered bad?

Does Hussein whether having nuclear, biological or chemical
weapons or attempting to acquire the same, present a threat to the
United States? Yes, he does. And we have the opportunity to stop
him before he can get and keep those weapons. Hussein presents a
threat even though he has not yet committed an overt act of
aggression. After all, what did the highjackers do to us before
Sept. 11, 2001?

Daniel B. Rego Class of 2000