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