The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

93° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mail Bag

    State legislators must hear student voice

    We would like to thank the Arizona Daily Wildcat for highlighting the importance of higher education (“”Setting the agenda””). Financial aid is the foundation of support for thousands of students in Arizona who otherwise would not be able to attend college.

    The Arizona Students’ Association will be hosting a rally for financial aid at the state Capitol. The event will be on Wednesday, April 4 at noon. Buses will leave from Old Main at 10 a.m. and we encourage all students to attend. All interested students will be provided with a dean’s excuse and a free ride. We will be returning around 3 p.m.

    It is important that students show legislators that this is something that needs to be addressed. The more students that attend, the bigger the message we will be able to deliver. Let’s show the state legislators that the students at the UA care, they have a voice and they will be heard.

    To attend, and we hope you do, please contact one of the following ASA directors at ASUA.

    Chris Nagata, Deema Tabbara
    co-directors, Arizona Students’ Association

    U.S. ‘occupation’ the problem in Iraq

    Matt Stone’s column (“”Napolitano goes for truth over consequences””) is well-written, if a bit simplistic, and I think his article could have been stronger had he asked one or two tough questions.

    What evidence (besides the current apparent improvement) is there that Iraq will ever be stable during a U.S. occupation? If you, Bush and Napolitano are right that we should stick it out (as may be perfectly true) does that mean that 10, 20, 50 or 100 years is worth it? What if it never happens?

    Though very different from Vietnam, politicians (especially those in office) argued for years that we just needed more soldiers. Such arguments cost the lives of more than one-half of all U.S. soldiers who died in Vietnam.

    Might it be that the very U.S. occupation is itself a major cause of the level of violence that we see in Iraq? Might it be that those groups draw their strength from the very fact that the U.S. is imposing (at least in their view) changes on them? If this is the case, then an increase in U.S. troop presence could equate an increase in subversives.

    As for the current apparent lull in violence (besides the police rampage that left 60 dead yesterday), it is common practice for subversive groups to retreat during increased offensives by military forces. Take, for example, the recent case in Colombia. When the president upped the offensive against the FARC, their leader simply said, “”We’ll wait. We’ve been around 40 years. We can wait four or eight more years.””

    Keep it up, but don’t forget to ask the tough questions too.

    Riley Merline Latin American studies graduate student

    Politics, inter-party fights separate issues

    I respect Erin Hultquist’s vehement Wednesday reply (“”Republicans, ‘family values’ don’t mix””) to my opinion piece on Monday, as I have eagerly been awaiting a retort to my political notes. I was not trying to indicate that the Republicans’ agenda was more family-oriented, Ms. Hultquist. Rather, I was pointing out the significance of the Republicans’ inter-party politics.

    This is quite different from what the Republicans opt to vote for or the issues they represent. I was indicating that the Republican Party operates more along a close-knit family in comparison to the Democrats. For example, as I stated on Monday, the Republicans failed to overwhelmingly disagree with the Bush policy and administration until years after numerous facts were exposed to the media.

    If I mentioned abortion or any sort of policy issues on Monday, I can see how you skewed my message, but unless my memory fails me, I definitely did not. I also pointed out that there was not overwhelming party support once Kerry was nominated for the Democratic party; again if I failed to make this clear by mentioning any sort of issues the Democrats represented such as the “”war”” in Iraq, I see how you might have misread my opinion. (These two facts can be assessed on your own time by reviewing a variety of relatively unbiased sources, which tend to come from beyond our own borders, such as BBC.com)

    My intent on Monday was not to instigate feelings along party lines in regards to the issues. My point on Monday was to highlight observations in regards to the way each political party handles scandals and misgivings within their party, not at all how they tackle political issues in the media or against other parties. There is a difference between the political issues and inter-party scandals.

    I am proudly going to state I do not affiliate strongly with any political party, as I said in another letter, because no candidate running seems to represent my values or agenda, but I respect all political parties for their attempt to incite talk and political passion. I write opinion pieces in regards to the current political situation so people reassess the current situation and keep a keen eye for observation in the upcoming election.

    In regards to your choice of Barack Obama for president, I respect your choice, but hope you don’t quickly close off other candidates in the Republican and Independent parties, and especially re-evaluate the Democratic Party because it’s still quite early in the Election 2008 race.

    Ashley C. Emerole sophomore majoring in political science and regional development

    More to Discover
    Activate Search