Cynicism of U.S. action uncalled for
Shirin Vossoughi should think twice before accusing the United
States of humanitarian irresponsibility ("U.S.
humanitarian efforts not enough,” Daily Bruin, Oct.
16).
The fact is we were sending aid to Afghanistan before this war
broke out. She seems to accuse us of killing the civilians to whom
we are trying to send aid, while neglecting the fact that all
targets so far have been military or governmental.
If Vossoughi lived in Afghanistan, she would experience their
version of humanitarianism. She would live in a country housing
members of al-Qaeda who would gladly kill thousands of civilians
for the benefit of their religion. She would see girls genitally
mutilated to deny them lives of sexual pleasure and others stoned
to death for premarital sex. As for the government, she would see
them cooperate with and support mercenaries, drug rings and as
we’ve learned, ruthless terrorists.
It seems to be a popular theme for Vossoughi’s articles to
paint all U.S. actions with cynicism. Vossoughi heartlessly dares
to downplay the events of Sept. 11 by comparing them to past U.S.
actions. This is not a case of the chickens coming home to roost;
it is a senseless murder of thousands committed by terrorists in
political bed with the Taliban.
Daniel Barnhart Chemical engineering
Liberal media can’t be trusted
Shirin Vossoughi (“U.S.
humanitarian efforts not enough,” Daily Bruin, Oct. 16)
is a victim of the liberal-controlled media that misleadingly
portrays U.S. bombings in Afghanistan. It is very easy to make our
actions in Afghanistan look equivocal or two-faced if it is
one’s desire to do so.
Apparently, Vossoughi’s desire to cast a cloud over the
head of the U.S. military has led her, and many others, to believe
that the military is actually dropping food and bombs side-by-side,
as the illustration next to her article would suggest.
However, a more unbiased observer would recognize the fact that,
first, the U.S. is not indiscriminately bombing Afghan civilians
like liberal fed-demonizers surmise; second, the government has not
been inconspicuous about trying to play two roles at once.
Contrary to how Vossoughi misinterprets military actions,
adopting both the role of humanitarian and avenger is a strategic
measure meant to wrench what we want out of the ruling Taliban
regime.
What we want is Osama bin Laden. If we have to both bomb and
feed Afghanistan at once, then so be it. I just wish that people
would keep their hatred and suspicion of the federal government in
check and refrain from purposefully ““ or, sadly enough for
some, unpurposefully ““ misidentifying what the Bush
administration is doing overseas.
Perhaps it is a good idea to air-drop even more food, but to
call the actions of our military selfish and careless is
shortsighted and dishonest. The fact that the Taliban has already
capitulated somewhat and made an offer ““ albeit an inadequate
offer ““ to turn over bin Laden to a neutral nation has proven
it positive that our efforts to persuade them is having some
effect. So let’s continue to support the judgement of our
leaders.
J. Daniel Williams First-year Civil
engineering
U.S. founders not all religious
In his letter “God,
religion did bless our nation” (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Oct. 17), Joel Schwartz makes several glaringly inaccurate
statements.
The worst of these falsities was that America’s
“Christian founders derived the concept of freedom, hard work
and personal responsibility from their religion.” It may be
true that our Founding Fathers framed our nation with some ideas
derived from Christianity, but they were not all Christians. Our
founders were familiar with the horrors of religious persecution,
which had terrorized Europe for centuries, and were staunchly
determined to avoid repeating the horrible mistakes caused by
state-enforced faith. Furthermore, almost all of the founders were
Deists and Unitarians ““ not Christians.
Among this group of nonbelievers are Benjamin Franklin, Thomas
Paine, Ethan Allen and our first six presidents: George Washington,
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and John
Quincy Adams.
Of those, Thomas Paine was the most outspoken opponent of
religion as he demonstrated in his classic book, “Age of
Reason,” which exposed Christianity’s frauds. Of
course, for speaking his mind and pointing out obvious flaws in the
Bible, Paine was despised and attacked by the clergy and died in
miserable poverty.
Schwartz goes even farther to deceive the reader by pretending
that he is not partial to Christianity by labeling himself an
agnostic. Frankly, from reading his article, I think he is lying
““ if not to us, then to himself. A true agnostic would not
make such blatantly theistic ““ and sickeningly patriotic
““ statements as “I will say right now that we are the
greatest country in the world, and it is directly because of a link
with God.”
That sounds more like something stolen from a sermon by Jerry
Falwell than the honest words of a person teetering between belief
and unbelief.
So, let’s do as our founders did and learn from history
and from the present. Where religion and government have been wed,
oppression and persecution have followed.
Need we look any further than the tragic conditions in
present-day Israel and Afghanistan for proof that the union of
church and state is a dangerous experiment that we dare not
repeat?
Eric Tang Second-year Political science