Letters to the editor

Americans should thank Bush

How many innocent people must die before more Americans realize
that there is a real World War on terror and that the Bush
administration and Israel are the good guys? Two suicide bombs in
one day killed 40 innocent people and have injured over 100 more,
many critically. This incident closely follows the bombing of the
Jordanian embassy two weeks ago that killed 19. The Jerusalem
bombing was exceptionally revolting, killing 20 Ultra-Orthodox Jews
as they were bussed home after praying at the Western
Wall. The Baghdad bombing targeted the U.N. headquarters,
essentially targeting the world’s leading philanthropic
nations.

President George Bush as well as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon are considered by some Americans to be the bad guys. Suppose
the United States or Israel decided to blow up a bus leaving a
mosque in Mecca, which both nations have the technology to do. The
world would be in an uproar, Muslim nations would probably start
World War III. Why does it not seem as bad when Israelis get
bombed? Because it happens so often that people are desensitized to
it? Wasn’t there a truce in Israel with terrorist
organizations as the “road map” is pursued?

American anti-war protesters need to wake up and realize that
the Western World needs their support and thank our leaders for the
extra security provided since Sept. 11, 2001. Many Americans see
Bush’s foreign policy as provocative and ineffective. Perhaps
they should end their blind stubbornness and realize Bush is the
man for the job to protect us from bad, bad people.

Rafael Meghnagi Venice

United Nations must remain out of Iraq

Shiva Bhaskar brings up good arguments supporting the
involvement of the international community in the rebuilding of
Iraq in his column, “Rebuilding of Iraq must be international
effort” (Aug. 18). However, we must remember that bringing in
the international community comes at the cost of giving up
unilateral power over the Coalition Provisional Authority.

A more active international involvement would likely entail a
broad UN resolution giving more authority to the United Nations,
something that is not in the interest of the United States and its
close allies. Iraq risks becoming bogged down in the infamously
inefficient U.N. bureaucracy and political haggling.

Bhaskar states that the greatest advantage of international
involvement is economic relief. While I agree with this statement,
I disagree with his proposition that we must either cut off
assistance to the Iraqis or share the costs. Our economy has enough
resources to bear this cost in the near future. While it would
be nice to share the price tag of the invasion, the potential chaos
resulting from handing control to the United Nations would be
disastrous.

Bhaskar also argues for ensuring “that all nations
affected by the events in Iraq can play as big a role in dealing
with these occurrences as America currently does.” This is
probably the worst case scenario for the United States. The last
thing we need is for foreign countries to meddle in the affairs of
Iraq and make life more difficult. He points to Jordan and Iran as
two countries that would possibly be involved. Giving them an
opportunity to participate in Iraq will only lead to one of two
situations. Either they will be seen as American lap dogs, or they
will try to stir up trouble and implant their own ideology in Iraq.
Neither scenario is desirable. 

While a new U.N. resolution may somehow give more legitimacy to
the United States, this invasion will always be seen as a U.S.
undertaking, and nothing anyone can do will affect that. The United
States can only be vindicated by building a truly prosperous and
free Iraq. By bringing in the United Nations and risking the future
of Iraq, the United States risks leaving the peace in the hands of
an inefficient and politicized international
“community.”

Patrick Lam Second-year, political science