With us or against us

In a Feb. 9 column in the New York Times, columnist Thomas Friedman puts forth the argument that France, one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, should be thrown off and replaced with a more "suitable" country. It is no coincidence that France is also one of the few countries that actively opposes current U.N. involvement in Iraq. To remove France from power would drastically bias the system, not to mention completely eliminate any dissenting voice on the Security Council. Friedman's reasons for "kicking France off the island" are vague and based more on hearsay than actual fact.\nEarlier this year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld derogatorily referred to France, Germany and Belgium as "old Europe" and dismissed their worth to the world. The French want to beef up U.N. weapons inspection teams, as well as give them more time before launching into -- what a plurality of people across the world see as -- an unnecessary war. Germany, Belgium, Russia and China -- all important superpowers -- said a war in Iraq is currently the wrong thing to do.\nBoth of these incidents, while separate, are part of a political trend that has been festering in this country since immediately after Sept. 11, "You're either with us … or against us." This is a very dangerous mindset for anyone to be in, let alone a country on the brink of what could be a world war. The world cannot be seen in only black and white. This divisive attitude can only cause deeper problems, not solve them. \nThe underlying messages from both of these incidents, whether intentional or not, is that dissenters shouldn't have a voice. What I don't hear is, "Gee, why did six million people across the world protest war with Iraq this past Saturday? I wonder if they have any valid reasons for this action?" Instead, I hear, "Anti-American commie bastards! I knew you all supported Saddam Hussein and his blatant, though never revealed, connections with terrorist organizations!" \nAnyone who does not follow lock-step with pro-war policy is yelled at and called an idiot. If you don't agree with the government, then the government tries to silence you. To return to Friedman's article, it says that France should be taken off the Security Council simply because they don't agree with the United States. While never stated so bluntly, the message rings loud and clear. No discussion ever takes place, only name-calling and blustering. While American politics has always operated like this, never before has it been so important. When deciding the fate of the world, everyone in the world should have a voice that can be heard.\nBut opposing viewpoints bring fear. On the Feb. 4 edition of "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly became dumfounded that his guest, Jeremy Glick, whose father was a Sept. 11 victim, had signed an anti-war advertisement. O'Reilly became so infuriated by his guest's stance that he had Glick's mic cut halfway through the interview. But before the tirade ended, O'Reilly put to words what many in power think about the anti-war movement: "Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think."\nIn the fall of 2002, Saddam Hussein was re-elected as president of Iraq with 100 percent of the vote. It is assumed that if you didn't vote for him, you would be tortured or killed. Sadly, the rest of the world is following suit. Instead of making the world safe for democracy, the government is only counting the votes that it wants to count.