As a graduate of Concordia (BA History 1996) I like to
keep up with the current campus events by reading the
Concordian online. I understand that a vocal minority
love to pose as contarian radicals and throw around
molitov cocktails of criticisms on virtual every subject.
Normally, this offers me a weekly giggle as a I read
various misinformed utopian dreamers attempt to tilt at
wind mills. But your recent pampleteering for the ant-war
movement has motivated me to respond.
While your coverage of the Iraq crisis heeps scorn on
those attempting to remove a dictator from power, it only
occasionally mentions his crimes. It is his proven track
record as a murderer on his own citizens and neighbours
that warrents his removal. Full stop. While oil is certainly
a motive to get rid of Sadamn, so what?
And why criticize the war option when violence is the only
language Saddamn regime converses. Force was and is
neccessary to keep Saddam from completely
disregarding the UN and its resolutions. He did it in past
and he continues to do so. The threat of war is
neccessary. Therefore, going to war must be an option.
The problem with the anti-war movement–and the
Concordain coverage of it–is that it confuses the rhetoric
of threatening force with the act, intent or desire to go to
war. That’s simply illogical. But it certainly makes a good
banner to fly at a rally, because the accusations don’t
have to make sense, they just have to be
understandable. Call it anti-war spin. That way you can
rally public support by fostering ignorant sentiment.