The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

81° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mail Bag

    Democrats need to get back on track

    I agree with Damion LeeNatali’s Friday piece on the Democrats. People tend to think that the problem with Democrats is that they are too liberal on “”moral”” issues such as religion, but that is a myth. The reason Democrats are losing elections is not only because they are running out of ideas, but also because they sometimes seem too wishy-washy when they try to win over Republicans. Granted, there is nothing wrong with being a bit moderate. Just remember, though, Harry Truman

    Having to choose from those (Republican) candidates is like having to choose between Barry Manilow and Pat Boone on a road trip.

    – Joel Shooster
    political science junior

    once said that if you put a Republican against a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the Republican will win every time. Democrats need to quit focusing on President Bush and should be more concerned about the next Bush, and that shouldn’t be too hard after looking at the lineup of candidates for the Republicans in 2008. Having to choose from those candidates is like having to choose between Barry Manilow and Pat Boone on a road trip. Uggh!

    However, this strategy of uniting the country after bashing Republicans is a failed strategy. The only reason they are winning is because Republican politicians have reached a new low of lows. It’s like shooting bullets into a barrel of fish that are already dying. Democrats need to push forward their own contract with America and show everyone that America can once again be the greatest country in the world. Now, not all Democrats are idealess. You have people like Barack Obama, with his ability to take on the religious right, and Mark Warner, who has a strategy to bring America back from energy dependence. If Democrats can steer toward guys like them and steer away from the Howard Dean/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid crowd, then we are in business.

    Joel Shooster
    political science junior

    U.S. presence in Iraq is the problem, not the solution

    While I have tremendous respect for Matt Stone as a student and a person, I have to categorically disagree with his assertion that more troops in Iraq are the “”only way forward.”” On the contrary, U.S. troops’ presence in Iraq has destabilized the region and is actually creating the very sentiment (hatred) toward Americans that we are supposedly trying to fight. We shouldn’t have been in Iraq in the first place, and we shouldn’t be there now. Iraq is not, and never was, the central front in the war on terror – but, if we continue down our current path, it could be. The central front is in the hearts and minds of Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese and the wider Arab and Islamic world. You can’t win those hearts and minds if you’re shooting and blowing up their children, husbands, wives, fathers, etc.

    With the Iraqi civilian death toll conservatively estimated to be between 41,650 and 46,318 unnecessary deaths, we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them. With conceivably every citizen of Iraq having lost at least one family member or close friend to this war – and in a violent and untimely death – do you think they’re going to line up to support the very troops that pulled the triggers and launched the mortars? The answer to winning this war of ideas lies in getting our cherished family members serving in the armed forces out of harm’s way and to utilize one of our nation’s greatest assets: hope for a better tomorrow and a solution to this unnecessary quagmire through real collaborative international humanitarian efforts.

    Dustin Cox
    junior majoring in political science and sociology

    Conspiracy theories have no place in campus news

    I have never been more disappointed with the Arizona Daily Wildcat than after reading yesterday’s article “”Skeptics unite to scrutinize officials’ explanations of 9/11″” written by Craig Grau. I have taken the opportunity to view “”Loose Change”” and “”9/11 Revisited”” (they are readily available online), and their arguments reach into the absurd, at best. To give groups such as Voices of Opposition a platform with which to bark their conspiracy theories to the general public is nothing short of irresponsible journalism. There has never been a more tragic attack on America. One would think on its fifth anniversary more newsworthy events would warrant a featured article.

    Clayton Boen
    UA alumnus

    Proposed solutions are mutually exclusive, incomplete

    In his column yesterday, Matt Stone proposed two mutually exclusive solutions to America’s problem of eliciting Middle Easterners’ contempt: 1. “”the way forward demands the diversification of American energy sources away from oil and its worrying effects”” (we’ll call this the “”Thomas Friedman approach””), and 2. “”Ameliorate the poverty of dignity that exists.””

    If we choose option one, we’re no longer obliged to care about those indigenous to the region because our corporations/government are no longer engaging in business transactions that subjugate the majority while making those in the minority rich in the region. We’re no longer pissing Middle Easterners off because our actions are no longer affecting them.

    If we choose option two, we’re no longer obliged to decrease our dependence on oil because the business transactions we make in the region will be cleaned up, assuring that even the “”little guy”” in the region gets his share of the region’s wealth. We’re no longer pissing Middle Easterners off because our actions affect them, but not adversely, and we can continue to obtain oil.

    So, which option should we choose – one or two?

    I suppose an idealist would say that we can both improve the quality of life in the Middle East as well as the state of our climate, but human beings (in my cynical opinion) aren’t capable of concern if it doesn’t benefit them in some fashion. Without a need for oil, what’s going to make us care about the Middle East at all, let alone its inhabitants? Likewise, with our affairs in the oil industry no longer eliciting terrorists’ scorn, what’s going to impel us to stop importing it so that we can fill our sport utility vehicles with gas?

    Our humanity? A “”moral imperative””? A drive to do what’s right, above all self-interest? I don’t think so.

    Andrew McGhee
    former columnist, sophomore majoring in English

    What is the price of freedom?

    Today, as I was standing at the corner of East Speedway Boulevard and North Campbell Avenue waiting for the bus, I observed protesters from both sides of the coin. There were some who supported President Bush and his actions since 9/11, and those who believed that 9/11 was an inside job.

    As I stood there, I found myself becoming enraged with anger, not because I agreed or disagreed with either side, but because it seems to me that people have lost sight of what today signifies. Granted, it has been five years since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but that does not change the fact that thousands of people lost their lives.

    Although time heals some wounds, it does not bring back the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who died on that day. So before continuing on with your everyday life, just remember that faithful Tuesday morning, and ask yourself this question: What’s the price you paid for freedom? Some gave all.

    Lance Cpl. Stephanie
    Law criminal justice junior

    More to Discover
    Activate Search