Letters to the Editor

A constitutional right

To the editor:

In David Copley's column ("Doing what's necessary to win," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 3/24/03), he completely fails to understand the protests he attempts to write about. I agree that the Penn protesters have done nothing to stop the war; I could say with much confidence they haven't changed a single elected official's viewpoint. They all could have sat at home and watched television and things would be just about the same right now.

However, to suggest that they should never have tried demonstrates Copley's failure to understand what a protest is. To protest means to object, not to blindly accept. Protesters cannot know whether their protest will be successful, and if people choose to protest in a harmless manner, Copley should respect that they want to get themselves heard.

Protesting is a constitutional right, and people should feel free to exercise one of the only chances most Americans have to get their voice heard. While Copley can sit comfortably on his Republican values, millions in America feel their voice is not being heard by their elected officials and are doing everything they can to change that. Would he suggest Rosa Parks would have achieved more by reading a book on slavery than refusing to move? After all, when she refused to move, the history books said she was wasting her time.

By looking only to the past, Copley makes his biggest mistake. He forgets that the future doesn't have to be the same. Several months into the Vietnam protests, would Copley tell the protesters to go home and let the American leaders wage wonderful warfare to save the world from the wrath of communism? His logic almost seems to suggest that because most protests can't succeed by the nature of government, they are a waste of time.

While Copley demonstrated his command over anecdotal evidence, had he looked further in the history books, he would have seen also that the use of "firm military support" has also led to nothing but death. Some Americans want the world to know they don't agree, and if Copley doesn't respect that, he truly has missed the mark.

Marc Tarlock College and Engineering '04

Deriding the alternatives

To the editor:

It is possible to intelligently debate a war on Iraq. What continually bothers me about David Copley's column is his failure to address this debate in such a manner. Copley paints the world in black and white; he's the good guy, Saddam's the bad guy and anyone who disagrees is just na‹ve. This ignores any deeper complexity; in fact, there are a wide range of possible diplomatic and military resolutions to this conflict.

Copley's condescension is an insult; many who disagree are far more qualified than he (Copley studies finance and real estate -- is that Iraqi real estate?) and belies his more obvious factual mistakes. According to Copley, the U.S. has for 30 years been "asking nicely for Saddam to stop." Oh, really? Is that why then-Special Presidential Envoy Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq in 1983 to discuss matters of "mutual interest?" Did Rumsfeld say anything while in Baghdad on March 24, 1984, about Iraqi use of chemical weapons, the same day that Iraq used mustard gas and nerve agent against Iranians in a U.S.-backed war? Was the last 12 years of bombing, for that matter, "asking nicely?"

Copley also derides any alternatives to military action, claiming that no oppressive dictatorship has ever been overthrown without war. He ignores the history of the last two decades, which witnessed the fall of European communism without a single battle.

Copley promotes the image of "a cheering throng of villagers" welcoming U.S. liberators. As is often the case, the truth is rarely so simple. According to The Washington Post, "One group of Iraqi boys smiled and waved as a convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by. But once it had passed, their smiles turned to scowls. 'We don't want them here,' said 17-year-old Fouad. 'Saddam is our leader. Saddam is good.'"

Dan Margolis Engineering '06

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.