Apparently Scott Englund’s television is stuck on FOX. His statement that this war was “fought for entirely moral reasons” (Daily Nexus, “Protest Signs Tell More About Liberal Delusions Than Iraqi War,” April 28, 2003) is like saying you can make cookies with only flour. Let’s take it from the top: Iraq, prior to the war and now, is the weakest country in the Middle East after it suffered massive devastation during the Gulf War. Half its population, prior to the war, was under 15 years old. Iraq’s neighbors, all a different sect of Islam, disliked Hussein, but found him absolutely harmless. Now, they sympathize with him for being beat up like a blind kid by a marine.

Although I do not agree with mudslinging and name-calling when larger issues are at hand, perhaps its time to realize that our country is more a business than a shining beacon of truth. If you’ve been paying attention, and consulting different sources, you would have found out that France had a large oil interest in Iraq. You would have also found out that we were in such a hurry to drop some bombs because the OPEC dollar was making the transfer into the stronger Euro. Nevertheless, this would have pushed us further into recession. Also, taking into account that it has been proven that Hussein and Bin Laden historically despised each other and that Bin Laden made two attempts at Hussein’s life, this was not a fight against terrorism. In fact, if we were so concerned with the welfare of the world, we might be forever fighting against dictators. That is, of course, if it wasn’t for the fact that we probably put them into power.

I agree that comparing Bush with Hitler pushes it, but it is in no way “a stunning example of blind partisanship.” I say this because a Democrat would never make this statement and liberals (there is a big difference) are not represented by any party in our government. It may seem like this is all about “liberal dissatisfaction with the Bush administration than it ever was about oil or pacifism,” but what else would it be about? It is no giant secret that liberals prefer more civilized solutions to global conflict and are repulsed by moneyed interests. The Bush administration’s disregard to provide substantial evidence for going to war only irritated liberals more. Their statements that appear outrageous are created to make us think and question, their own version of shock and awe. They remember that in a democracy, it is your right, as a citizen, to voice your opinions in protest or in consent.

So thank you for your opinion, but please don’t insult people’s intelligence by assuming that anyone paying close attention to the Iraqi war “for this past month” would see it as a moral crusade. Perhaps if you were only watching corporate news in America, and only for the past month, would you come to that conclusion. However, if you sought out different news sources and paid attention to the history you would see that there is no simple answer, and many factors play into a nation’s decision to go to war. Governments need to make money to stay in power and keep people thinking that they have the right answers. As a nation of capitalists, it’s impossible to logically ignore the fact that we will not put lives on the line and stir up global turmoil without being able to reap a great benefit. We are the world’s superpower, and in order to stay in this position, we have to assert ourselves. Iraqi lives are collateral damage, as well as our veterans whose benefits were cut by $26 billion right after they went off to fight. So when Mr. Englund states that we have been taught that “prosperity is something to be ashamed of,” I have to say that’s in not how rich you are, but how you earned your money.

Ana Kaczmarek is a junior black studies major.