‘Girls’ not suited for combat in war
To all of the people writing in favor of females in the draft — I know there is not much tact in slander, but you are absolute idiots. Men and women are different physically and mentally; that’s simple biology. Men are naturally more aggressive and physically fit and I believe better suited for war.
But if you don’t agree, whatever — that’s not the point. The point is you selfish jerks are willing to send to war people who don’t need to go. And why? Because you want to make a point about equality. You, in your infinite wisdom, know so much about how the world should work that we should rearrange things and get people shot at so you can prove that we’re all absolutely identical. Our sisters, aunts and girlfriends are going to get shot at and killed because you wanted to make a point about equal rights. That is selfish and cowardly. And it’s true that our society has developed into a chivalrous system in which men like to protect women and their families. Personally, I like that. But you don’t have to and I can see why some women might feel trampled on by all of the masculinity in the world. If women want to be independent then that’s great; they have every opportunity to individually join the army and do whatever they have to do to feel equal. But don’t subject millions of women to something that they don’t have to do and aren’t generally as capable of doing just for a matter of political correctness.
I know too many girls who are certainly not suited for combat, and I love too much to see that happen to them. And I’ll tell you that if anyone comes and tells me that Uncle Sam needs me, I’ll go reluctantly because that’s my duty, and I’ll deal with it. But if that joker thinks he is going to come and take my sister with him, he had better come wearing a helmet and some running shoes. And I hope most men feel the same way.
Nicholas Sorrel
Senior — Biological Sciences
Women, gay people shouldn’t be in combat
Draft discrimination, especially for combat arms, does not hurt the military nor the men who serve in combat. The military is not around to be politically correct, it is around to protect the freedoms of this country. The reason women do not serve as infantry soldiers is because having a woman in a combat unit will lower the effectiveness of the unit. This is also why homosexuality is not allowed. If the military knew nothing would be lost by allowing a woman or homosexual in the combat arms, I promise you they would allow it. In general, men become uncomfortable when living with homosexuals. Not because a homosexual is going to rape the man in the middle of the night or something stupid like that, it’s just it has not been accepted in society yet. If it were, then there wouldn’t still be bickering over gay rights.
And to say that women “have proven themselves to be equal to their male counterparts in every combat situation, they have oftentimes far surpassed the men,” as Niels Paulson-Throp stated, is a flat-out lie. Combat is an athletic event. There is more to combat than just thinking. Physical strenth/ability is a major part of combat. And 90 percent of the women in this world would not be able to handle the stresses of the physical activity associated with combat, not to mention the cycles a female’s body goes through each month. I have seen women in the field doing military training before. I have seen women do quite well in a field environment as well. But to have a by chance-draft in which randomly selected women are asked to go to the field to fight against men, with men … I don’t like their chances, nor the men who are forced to serve with them.
Chris Pearson
Senior — Chemical Engineering
War is a sign of bad government
I don’t not believe Saddam Hussein is a decent person. I’m not going to nominate him for the Nobel Peace prize. However, with the threat of a war over something I know not much about, I ask myself this question … Have the governments of the world failed? Government is established to prevent tribal warfare. If there were no government, all people would still be fighting bloody wars over who had the right to govern whom. By having a government, we admit to the fact that we are tired of fighting, tired of hating each other on the sole basis of who is right to be the leader.
Hopefully all of the conflicts in the Middle East will be resolved in a mature manner and I can have respect and adoration for the governments of the world once again.
Matthew Dosher
Junior — Mass Communication
Students should not drive drunk
Losing a friend is one of the hardest things a person can go through. Unfortunately, I had to find that after my good friend was killed in a car accident Feb. 7. However, I have found that I am able to deal with losing her much more easily than I have been able to deal with my anger for the driver of the other car. He was drunk, and to me that is not excusable. I cannot understand why a person would knowingly endanger not only himself, but the lives of countless other innocent individuals as well.
I am writing this as a plea to all students, faculty or whomever — please do not drive after consuming alcohol! I have found that most students believe they are invincible — that bad things won’t happen to them, but unfortunately this is not true. No one ever thinks it will happen to them, but after attending a 19-year-old’s funeral Monday, I can tell you that it can happen to anyone. Please don’t let the next one be you.
Kelly Henderson
Junior — Mass Communication
Editor should check her facts
Your opinion editor, Christina Stephens, should do some reading in her own paper before deciding to write [a column] about the Emmert issue. The cover story clearly details most aspects of Ms. Stephens column: The fact that it’s no secret where the money is from, his “ethics and principles” are not questionable and that his contract has been poked and prodded since he got a raise.
The cover story “Chancellor’s fund allows tax-free investments” by Chief Staff Writer Samantha Sieber is very insightful into all these issues and gives very good explanations to many of Ms. Stephens’ “problems.” Maybe she should read the facts of a news story before placing an uneducated opinion on the subject.
The only conflict with this issue is with those who believe the money should be distributed elsewhere. Yet, none of these concerns can be dealt with until proper leadership has been put in charge. Keep up the good work ,Chancellor Emmert!
Erin McWilliams
Junior — Mass Communication
Forced democracy might do harm
Though I am against it, I have realized that a war with Iraq will come no matter how much we may protest. America will no doubt win this conflict and will begin to restructure Iraq’s government to our liking. Setting up a democracy will probably be the solution, but this may not be the best case. As much as I love democracy, I do not believe forcing it on the citizens of Iraq will be the best solution.
Recently, I researched the forced “modernization” theory for Dr. Mokeba’s third world politics class. With these findings, I concluded that forcing democracy will only complicate matters. Iraq has been controlled by totalitarianism for most of its history, and sudden democratization will cause instability. In order for democracy to work, the creation of various institutions is a necessary first step. While these institutions are implemented, confusion and disarray will plague the Iraqis, and the country will become unstable. Revolutionary groups will develop plans to better Iraq and internal conflicts will result. In the past the United States has forced Westernization and it only lead to an anti-West revolution. In order for democracy to work, the government must first be stable.
My research pointed out that sometimes a pro-West authoritarian leader must first be in control to bring stability before a country can move toward democracy. A pro-West leader would then find it in the country’s best interests to move toward a free society.
Once the U.S. topples the Iraqi regime, democracy should not be immediatly forced on the people because it would create greater instability and lead to the rise of anti-democracy groups. Bush says it is America’s duty to protect the Iraqi people, but forced democracy will do more harm than good. It is in our best interests to not force Iraq into the free world, but instead, we should allow it to blossom over time.
Benjamin Davis
Junior — History & Political Science
Bible not meant to be taken literally
I am ashamed of being from Louisiana after having read Chad Chauvin’s enlightening article about man’s interpretation of God’s word versus years of scientific inquiry because I know it’s not just him who believes this. I can’t believe that in this day and age folks would not “believe” in evolution. It’s like saying that you don’t “believe” in gravity. Saying that evolution is wrong means that the scientific process is wrong. Why believe anything that scientists tell you? I mean, why take a bath every day? Scientists must be crazy to think we will believe invisible “germs” make us sick!
Mr. Chauvin says “there’s no evidence that DNA information was gained through a natural process, it is always lost.” OK, there are things called mutations that can lose and gain DNA information. Ask any biology professor in the world, and they will tell you that mutations aren’t just a loss.
Mr. Chauvin makes a comment he would “choose God’s infallible word every time over man’s often unreliable estimations.” Did God’s hand come out of the sky and pen each and every one of his words that are in your Bible? Or did a man write them in a language you probably don’t know and someone else translate and retranslate those words over thousands of years into a Bible God probably wouldn’t even recognize? Really, you shouldn’t take the Bible so literally. Otherwise, we’d be burning lambs for sins and doing other really ancient stuff.
Come on. There are many interpretations of the Bible that aren’t so backwards. I don’t think that it’s either evolution or God; God is there for everyone who believes, and evolution is there, whether you like it or not.
Malia Guerrero
Senior — Mathematics