Peace in our Time

That's what Neville Chamberlain said after selling the Sudetenland to Hitler. Chamberlain's motives in trying to befriend Hitler in the name of peace were admirable, but it didn't really work. The author of "Proclaim peace" in Wednesday's Daily Universe has expressed exactly the same sentiment with regards to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This is the man who denies the Holocaust ever happened, calls for the death of Jews and Americans on a regular basis (talk about rhetoric), and feels he is personally called to bring about Armageddon. I also wish for peace, but that can't happen if fanatics like Ahmadinejad are allowed to continue unopposed. In fact, I believe the only thing keeping Ahmadinejad from launching his new mid-range missiles at Israel right now is his fear of Western retaliation.

This confrontational atmosphere is not as counterproductive as some may think. In fact, look at the way Reagan handled the Cold War. It worked (much to the chagrin of the radical left wing) and without ever actually fighting the Soviet Union. We simply expressed our disapproval of their hostile stance and backed it up with military might, and they ultimately backed down, afraid of a conflict they might lose.

In Iran's case, they would certainly fall to our military. That's what they're afraid of. Why do liberals continue to insist that we give up our leverage over these lunatics? Chamberlain tried it, and we all know how poorly that turned out.

Robert Richards
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Not hypocrisy

It is amazing to me that despite the fact that we have freedom of speech and freedom to support those political figures that we want to, the author of "No Reid protests" has forgotten all of that and accused BYU Democrats of being hypocrites. It is clearly not hypocrisy to protest those in the political world whom you don't support and to celebrate those whom you do support.

I love living in a country where the minority can have a voice and show the country that members of conservative BYU don't support the current administration even though the majority does. Unless, of course, the author of said editorial would like us all to silently support any "successful political leader" no matter who it is. Oh wait, they do want us to do that.

I, for one, will continue to support those political figures I want and protest, even vehemently if I choose, those political figures whom I believe I have no cause or reason to support (like Bush or Cheney). Disagree or agree, that is okay. That is true democracy, not the blind obedience supported by the author of the previously mentioned editorial. If the so called "silent majority" wish to remain as such, they are free to do so while those of us who "pitch a fit” will continue to make our voices heard.

Jordan Chapman
Fort Atkinson, WI

Stand for beliefs

In response to the letter about not protesting Senator Reid, I respectfully disagree. I do not ally myself with one political party, and I am a registered Independent. Though I did not attend, I supported the protest of Vice President Cheney. If we feel strongly about something, we should not be afraid to stand up for our belief, with or without majority support. Church leaders have not encouraged us to sit quietly if societal values conflict with those of the church. They have asked us to stand up for our values and beliefs.

The church does not make political party an issue, and I do not think that we as members should either. Instead of pointing fingers about which political parties someone supports, perhaps we should look at actions and beliefs. If the protestors did not support the torture and war that Vice President Cheney has been a part of, I believe that they were right to protest his appearance. If there are students who are opposed to Senator Reid speaking, they should also speak out and stand up for their beliefs. I would rather be a part of a minority that stands up for what it believes than a majority that sits silently while its values are violated. There is a fine but important line between respectful silence and inaction.

Allyson Hamacher
Chandler, Ariz.

Questions for Democrats

I would like to pose a question to the BYU College Democrats: Since BYU has invited Sen. Harry Reid to speak on campus, does this mean that BYU is endorsing his political point of view? Or is this only the case when the political point of view in question is not your own?

Scott Johnson
Grantsville

Is this peace?

Since the fraudulent 2000 Bush election, the neo-conservatives have talked into our collective ear like snakes with the deceptive idea that we must instigate war all over the world in order to ensure peace. Even Bush may have thought at first, "Did I hear you correctly? So we will start a war to create peace?"

I am no field Marshall, but I have a pretty good idea what war is. War is not peace.

And yet the subtle persuasion has continued: "This war is designed to destroy the enemies of peace."

We as Americans have clearly subscribed to the upside-down ideology that war is an integral part of peace. Obviously, Iraq represents that we were dead wrong. We are not closer to peace in Iraq after four years of war. America is not a more peaceful country. Iraq is not a peaceful place, although it was peaceful in February 2003, before the "pre-emptive strikes."

So let us get our heads out of this coma and stop catalyzing wars. We have the audacity to start a war and call it peacekeeping–how outrageous. The essential element of peace is peace. It is not a very complicated recipe. The fact is that war does not lead to peace. To think it will is as illogical as it is absurd. Over the last decade, I have been unimpressed by the slow cognitive reasoning of our greatest think tanks. My prediction: wars will always lead to more wars, as history shows us.

Joel Wilson
Louisville, Colo.

Free speech or rudeness?

Does free speech include rudely interrupting a speaker? Would it perhaps be more courteous free speech to wait until the floor is opened for allowing questions? If I would constantly interrupt one of Mrs. Clinton’s speeches by yelling at her: “Why did you not divorce Bill, when he cheated on you?” is that free speech?

Was Meyer’s behavior, Ms. Brachtcher, really a matter of free speech or simply unacceptable. very rude behavior that needed to be stopped? What is the police to do if a strong individual violently resists being removed from the room? Let him continue to make a fool out of himself? Please enlighten me, Ms Bratcher.

Hans-Wilhelm Kelling
Provo

Not just fear

John McCabe recently wrote a letter regarding The Daily Universe's naivety regarding foreign policy, specifically in relation to Iran's development of nuclear weapons. He asserted, "In all the U.S. media, there has never been any proof that Iran has or wants nuclear weapons. There is only rhetoric, US.. 'fear' and 'worries' that Iran is building nuclear weapons."

I do not feel a need to re-hash rebuttals against his asinine arguments that church members must "stop the insane march to war," but I felt a need to point out the blatant misinformation that McCabe disseminated. While it is true that U.S. media outlets do not have proof of Iranian nuclear weaponry, the follow-up statement regarding rhetoric and U.S. "fear" and worries" hold no weight. The United Nations Security Council - note the word "Security" in their title - passed a resolution in July 2006 for Iran to stop all nuclear refining activities. Its scope was broadened as recently as March 2007. When the U.N. unanimously passes resolutions barring nuclear development in Iran that ought to be considered more than just rhetoric, or passed off as a belittled "fear."

Bryan Gividen
Dale City, Va.

Copyright Brigham Young University 5 Oct 2007