Letter to the Editor: Bush's terror stance similar to Red Scare

Dear Editor,

How should the United States fit into a global world? One, the United States could work with other nations to create mutual understanding between the world's people. Second, the U.S. creates its own world through military terror.

David E. Sanger of the New York Times reported, "[President Bush would use the United States'] military and economic power to encourage 'free and open societies,' rather than seek 'unilateral advantage.'"

The U.S. does not seek "unilateral advantage"?

If this is the case, why does the President have "no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up [with our military]?"

I support all nations to have "free and open societies." I support free trade in the world to expose our form of government.

The President is not using economic power to encourage, shown by his continued support of tight Cuban and Iraqi sanctions. Through trade, U.S. ideals can be blended into and help educate unknowing populations of these "axis of evil" states.

President Bush is using only military pressure to accomplish his goals. Iraq has consented to UN inspectors; President Bush still continues to support military action. Even though the President's original goal was to allow inspectors back into the nation.

The comment by the President, "you are with us or you are a terrorist," shows that the U.S. is not a "free and open society." I do not support the President in pre-emptive strikes, therefore I am a terrorist.

This ideology is like the Red Scare, and breaches the first amendment, freedom of speech. Speaking out against the government caused one being considered a communist. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a communist.

Sept. 11 was the Taliban creating "unilateral advantage."

Paul Angelone
sophomore>


Comments






This Week's Digital Issue