I would like to apologize and to possibly end all mud-slinging nastiness that has been going on around here. I mean, what are we-children? I received false information, and then labeled an individual as being a member of an unfortunate group of people.
Jim McNichols is NOT in the infamous militant right-wing political militia known to us as the College Republicans of America (CRA).
In a letter that is visible on this page, Jim identifies himself as an individual who is concerned about the United States and its neighbors. He claims that he is not attacking Clinton just because he is Clinton, but just issues.
That’s nice. I like that. I am incredibly disappointed though, because I was really hoping to get into a dog fight with CRA. But oh well, I guess I’ll just keep dropping subtle invitations.
But back to Jim. Yes Jim, I’ll accept your explanation of your affiliation, and I trust in your concern for the people of America.
I will even go so far as to agree with your four-fold plan for foreign policy. I really don’t think that our fight was over that structure. I think that our disagreement was contained in your second point of the four-point plan, and I would still have to agree with my earlier point, that when it comes to point 2, removing the dangerous entity, your reasons are skewed.
The headline on my column two weeks ago identified me as defending a Democratic viewpoint, and in that case, they were probably right. But the headline (which I did not write) may have suggested that my comments were coming from a democratic agenda.
While I will never deny the fact that my past voting may have supported the left-wing party, my past articles are not based on my concern for the Democratic Party. My comments come from a concern for people just like you and me, Jim, and the fact that the United States seems to compromise their inalienable rights in the name of “justice.”
When Jim labels the military interventions in Somalia and the Persian Gulf as examples of “humanitarianism” he is simply allowing the wool to be pulled over his eyes.
As historians look back at the Gulf War, they are beginning to see that the U.S. ignored the humanitarian opportunities. The U.S. went after the oppressive head-of-state by destroying the cities and homes of his people, and then starving those people to death, affecting mostly children, the elderly and the sick.
And still Saddam Hussein remains, ignoring the unimaginable suffering of his people, while killing anyone who appears to be a rebel, in the style of Stalin.
Jim, if you graduate from this institution feeling that it is justified to put a country through a hell that guarantees a painful death in the name of international justice, then SLU needs to re-examine its Jesuit roots.
After years of education in an environment that focuses on the American beliefs of life liberty and justice, I cannot see how what we have done and are still doing in Iraq as defensible.
I am not speaking as a Democrat, I am speaking as a human being who acknowledges that my country kills with impunity by dehumanizing thousands of oppressed and suffering people as soldiers of evil.
The murder of Iraqis has not diminished the power of Saddam.
The murder of thousands of Kosovars will not bring justice to Kosovo.
By physically removing these men from the positions of power which they use to abuse the world, then at least we stop punishing those who appear to be suffering the most.
The fact that Milosevic would stop at nothing to gain as much control as possible in the former Yugoslav Republic is not the sin of the people who are just trying to survive. It is the fault of Milosevic and his advisors. We need to at least acknowledge that, so that we can address the problem and decrease our humanitarian violations.
And that, Jim, is not partisan, or good politics. It’s human. And that is all that we are called to become here at SLU: better human beings who can look beyond the culture’s objective look at life and become defenders of the voiceless.
