Page 2 The Broncos' Voice February 15, 1991
In Defense Of War Protestors
Photos by B.Beebe (Cont’d on page four)
Nki
U&L’
Student coalition against the war
by Barbara Beebe
On Jan. 26, 1991, a
multi-ethnic, multi-generational,
multi-political crowd of
250,000-1- people gathered in
Washington, D.C. to protest
America’s involvement and
inducement of war in the
Persian Gulf. It took over 3
hours for the 5^- miles of people
to march from the Capitol, past
the White House, to the Ellipse.
The Campaign for Peace in the
Middle East in conjunction with
the Coalition to Stop U.S
Intervention in the Middle East -
fronted by Ramsey Clark, the
Attorney General under Lyndon
Johnson - were able to organize
numerous organizations from
across the country to protest
U.S. involvement in the war.
The protest was only one of
thousands to occur around the
globe since the Aug. 5
deployment of U.S. troops in the
region.
Signs, chants, buttons,
and t-shirts all revealed urgent
and demanding slogans and
quotes against the war. However,
involvement in the anti-war
movement has revealed many
incisive lessons on the
hypocrisy, patriotism, and
ignorance that are pervasive in
this country.
The position of all war
protesters in America has
become a perilous one.
Overwhelming media bias and
subjectivity; taunts of
’communist’, ’traitor’, and
’America, love it or leave it’
remind one that a majority of
Americans are capable and
willing to fall prey to ’50’s style
hysteria and blind, lemming-like
patriotism.
The American government’s
aggressive involvement and
soldier compliance in war
against the citizens of Kuwait
and Iraq should prompt a truly
civilized public to ask questions
and demand answers and
reasonable justifications for U.S.
involvement in the region.
Unfortunately, jusdfications for
American involvement have been
exceedingly imperialist and
indicative of a hypocrisy that
many have unquestioningly
accepted as natural and just.
War protestors question this
Washington police guard the White House
so-called ’authority’. Yet, many
find it almost impossible to have
their opinions or numbers
revealed. Rarely do articles,
interviews, or television
programs focus on the positions
of the protestors. The media is
saturated with stories concerning
the tactical maneuvers of the
Allied Forces, the ’sins’ of
Saddam Hussein, and war
supporters. A sea of American
flags and patriotic slogans, with
the help of an inept media, have
been effective in smothering the
voices of dissent.
It is pertinent that these
positions are revealed in
conjunction with the accusations
and slogans that are hurled at
them from the National Party
Line.
The Defense
1. "Now that the war has
started, we must support the
troops."
This slogan, ’support the
troops’, used extensively by the
Nixon Administration during the
’60’s, is a slogan that should be
turned into a question - ’support
the troops to do what?’
Protesters care for the lives of
the American soldiers like their
pro-war counterparts, such as the
Family Support Network, a
group of military families
adamantly opposed to the use of
U.S, troops in the region.
However, supporting the
troops to drop bombs on ancient,
densely populated cities like
Baghdad is indicative of an
ethnocentric, violent culture.
Baghdad was a city of 4.5
million people. Regardless of the
video game-hke footage of
explosions seen on television,
many innocent civilians have
been killed. The lives of the
American troops, regardless of
any familial ties one may have
with them, are not more
important than the lives of
anyone else. The value of life
must never be subject to an
exchange rate.
2. "The war is being fought to
’liberate’ Kuwait and is not
being fought for oil."
This ’liberation’ of
Kuwait is a phrase that was not
used until the night U.S. troops
Afro-American protester questions the role
of Blacks in the Gulf.
began dropping bombs on
Baghdad. President Bush was
obviously searching for the best
euphemism to describe
destruction and pillage. War
protesters have clearly refused to
swallow this government-inspired
propaganda.
The liberation of the
Kuwaiti people has never been a
priority in this country. Did
anyone know who they were
before August 2, 1990? Does
an>'one realize the horrors and
poverty former ruling emir al-
Sabah had inflicted on the
Kuwaiti people? The U.S. does
not have a history of preserving
the sovereignty or supporting the
freedom fighters of small
countries. Remember the
invasion of Grenada? Of
Panama? Are we willing to
apply new rules to the same old
game simply because they
conflict with our economic or
control interests? Do we have a
right to attempt to police the
world? In the end, only the
Kuwaitis will be able to liberate
themselves.
As for the oil issue, one
sign spotted at the Jan. 26
protest says it all:^J}Wouldi^Bj^;^]\
be in the Gulf if Kuwait’^:,f%^
export were broccoli?" ' ;
3. "Saddam Hussein is: ,;a
madman, a Hider, who must be
stopped."
Anti-war protesters have
been quick to condemn
Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.
So have all the countries
represented in the United
Nations. However, consSinsQS,
stops there. Countries like-C^^b^,'
Yemen, and India have - been
vocal in opposition to U.S.
presence in the region. If
Hussein is truly a madman, what
gives the U.S. the right to play
psychiatrist? The league of Arab
Emirates was never permitted to
settie the dispute themselves.
America’s ethnocentric view of
the world permits it to have the
gall to treat Arab nations as a
group of children. Many war
protesters refuse to believe that
U.S. military technology is the
answer to the problems in the
Middle East.
Many protesters have also
refused to fall prey to the
Voice staffer & friend protest the war.