Letters

Regarding Jeremy Smith’s editorial “War on Terrorism: just war or just cause?”

Dear Mr. Smith:

I write to you about your opinion piece on the war on terrorism in the Oct. 25-31, 2001 issue of the Temple News. Each semester I look forward to selecting my favorite from amongst the writers of the Temple News. My selection criterion is very simple. The first one of whom says something completely stupid becomes my favorite target. Last semester it was Gave Rubin for his complete lack of knowledge about geography and the operation of a proposed missile defense system. It wasn’t that I disagreed with his position. He just didn’t know what he was talking about. Congratulations on being selected this semester. Here’s why:

If the Sept. 11 attack is “obviously a just cause for a war” and it is “completely justifiable for us to kill the perpetrators,” why is your conclusion that there is “no such thing as an acceptable loss when it comes to human life?” Are you always this wishy-washy?

Let me try to explain this to you, since you appear to be a pacifist. Or are you? I can’t figure you out.

If you’re a pacifist, imagine you and I are sitting down, face-to-face and I’m listening intently to your anti-war views. Suddenly, for no apparent reason I punch you in the nose. I tell you that I hate you. Will you hit me back? Maybe not. Suppose you don’t hit me at first. Will you then try to talk to me and try to understand why I hate you? What would you do if I belted you, once again without provocation, this time even harder? I think you’d fight back. After all, it would be self-defense and you’d realize that pacifism “at any cost” is wrong and (here’s that word again) STUPID. There are times when it becomes necessary to fight, and not only because it’s a just cause, but maybe for survival.

But if you do believe that war is sometimes justified, show me a way of fighting it without civilian casualties. Tell me of one modern war that has had no civilian casualties. Using your logic, World War II was an unjust war from the Allied perspective.

You suggest that because we live in the 21st century no missile should never “accidentally” (you misspelled it, try spell check next time) hit a civilian neighborhood. Are you implying that missile technology is not as good as it should be or that it was done on purpose? Don’t make insinuations without backing them up.

You erred when you implied that U.S. attacks are illegal because they were not approved by Congress. My recollection is that the vote to authorize use of force was unanimous in the Senate and there was one dissenting vote in the House. Get your facts straight.

The thing that is most annoying about you and most of your colleagues through the years is how naive you are. You spout liberal rhetoric without a shred of understanding about the world around you. I know because I was like you once, young and oh so stupid. Fortunately I didn’t expose my ignorance by writing publicly and I got a little smarter as I got older.

Stick to covering frat parties, beer, the entertainment scene and more beer, you know, things of interest to you and your peers. You can start writing about the serious stuff when you grow up.

Best Regards,

Steve Tustin
BBA 86, MBA 99