'We're sorry' is an excuse both ways\nThe debate over the war in Iraq is old, but it remains unresolved largely because it boils down to ethical issues that cannot be settled by logical argument. Some people think that preemptive attacks against unproven threats are justifiable, others do not. Some people think that the removal of a dictator is worth the deaths of 15,000 civilians, others do not. There's no argument on these questions; they come down to each person's morality. \nEdward Delp, however, in his column "Target Iran," seems to choose a few facts and then illogically proceeds to extrapolate some higher "truth" from them in order to justify his own moral leanings. He calls Saddam Hussein a "monster" and marvels that anyone can think that his removal from power was a bad thing. This is a strawman argument, however. Those opposed to the war in Iraq are not trying to claim that Hussein was a good man; what is at issue is (a) the right that America had to interfere without being asked, supported or overtly threatened and (b) whether the cost of interference was worth the result. \nThe United States has killed more civilians in the name of "freedom" than the Sept. 11 terrorists did in the name of their cause. Is this justifiable? Is Iraq a safer place now than it was under Hussein's regime? Is America a safer place now that we've given the other nations of the world so much more cause to resent us? Have we reduced the threat of terrorism with this action, or have we moved a whole new generation to the cause of "revenge"? \nIf the destruction of Fallujah can be justified by saying, "I'm sorry, but you shouldn't have let the terrorists set up shop in the first place," I wonder if Delp would similarly defend an Iranian attack on the United States. After all, he is suggesting that we should attack them, so by his reasoning, they should preemptively attack us to defend themselves. \nAfterward they could apologize: "We're sorry, but you shouldn't have let the warmongers set up shop in the first place."
Dustin Long\nGraduate Student
Delp is armchair quarterback for war\nAlthough I understand the IDS strives for diversity among the viewpoints it prints, I feel obligated to comment on "Target Iran" by Edward Delp.\nMr. Delp is exactly the kind of cheerleading, jingoistic armchair quarterback who has talked the nation into war without forethought. If invading Iran is such a desirable and necessary act of foreign policy, I look forward to Mr. Delp printing his notice of enlistment in these pages to show support for what he advocates. \nFailing that, he could explain where the troops, money, justification or support for such an action will come - not that he has even considered such questions, let alone formulated answers. His simplistic world view ("It amazes me that some still feel taking out Saddam was bad") of black-and-white alternatives belies the fact that he has, at best, a grammar school student's understanding of international relations or the war opposition he condescends. \nBy all means, the IDS should publish conservative viewpoints in its pages. But please seek out and print cogent, thoughtful conservative arguments - the kind I encounter every day among the students and faculty in political science - rather than meat-headed regurgitations of the daily talking points aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator.
Ed Burmila\nGraduate Student\nY200 Instructor
Neo-con's world is dangerous mirage\nHere is a news flash for Mr. Delp and all of you neo-conservatives fiendishly clinging to your version of a perverse and utterly nonexistent reality: \n1. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. \n2. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. \n3. Iraq had everything to do with consolidating U.S. oil interests, securing administration donor contracts and generating support for Bush's re-election.\n4. Contrary to the Bush administration's rosy picture, things in Iraq are disastrous and have been ever since the invasion.\n5. The bombing of Fallujah was a war crime, comparable with destroying Los Angeles to take out its street gangs. \n6. The total war death toll is in the tens of thousands. \n7. An estimated 10,000 dead were innocent noncombatants. \n8. The war in Iraq was a catastrophic failure.\n9. An invasion of Iran would be worse.
John Michael Hudson\nSenior
In pursuit of terror\nOf all the misguided rhetoric that Mr. Delp presents in his column "Target Iran" from the Jan. 26 Indiana Daily Student, his thesis that "an invasion of Iran would be even more justifiable than the invasion of Iraq" is by far the most baseless and extreme. \nThis thesis is derived using many distorted and contextualized elements. First, Mr. Delp says that the same justification for invading Iraq should be used to invade Iran. Is this because of Iran's obvious link to al-Qaida, their covert and illegal attempts to create weapons of mass destruction to remove a ruthless despot or to spread freedom to those deprived of it? If I am correct, these were all given as the justification for invading Iraq.\nThe Soviet Union possessed nuclear weapons for more than 50 years. The only direct confrontation with this arsenal was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This, as well as the Cold War, ended through the use of diplomatic means. However, this diplomatic relationship has been severely diminished directly because of the unilateral actions that resulted in the invasion of Iraq. This shows how this administration has crippled its own ability to utilize diplomacy as means to an end.\nMr. Delp's argument is riddled with his misconceptions about Iraq. First, the "atrocious gassings" used nerve gas supplied by the United States. Second, if the President were interested in pursuing terrorists, he would have focused on Saudi Arabia, where the vast majority of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from, as well as Jordan, where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was until the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Maybe Fallujah could have been saved had the military had a post-invasion and -occupation plan and been able to seal the borders to prevent the immigration of terrorists into Iraq.\nWhile this just highlights the inherent misconceptions spouted by Mr. Delp, it is obvious that his thesis is a product of fiction and propaganda. I am reminded of a saying I heard as a boy: "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously" -- Hubert Humphrey.
J. Andrew Kienle\nSenior
Another war not a welcome prospect\nContrary to what Delp writes in "Target Iran," it is blatantly obvious that Saddam was not "a serious threat." No WMDs were found in Saddam's possession (which President Bush assured us he had), and his military might was nonexistent. Furthermore, it should be noted that ensuring Saddam receives a fair trial is merely advocating the American legal system. While one may not agree with defending such a person, someone must do it.\nMore disturbing in Delp's column, however, is his inability to empathize with the innocent victims of Fallujah. Additionally, his arrogance toward said injured party is downright offensive. Using Delp's own logic, it would be acceptable for Osama to say, "Sorry about Sept. 11, but you shouldn't have let my men get on the planes in the first place." Although it is true that airport security should have been tighter, does that make Osama any less responsible? Delp's reasoning suggests yes.\nRegarding Iran, it is true that the country has "admitted to having a program that could develop nuclear capabilities." However, Delp neglects to mention that Iran has stated the program is geared toward developing nuclear power, not nuclear weapons, and one should not discount the possibility that this is the truth. The preemptive action that could come from Israel, seemingly advocated by Delp and Vice President Cheney, should be discouraged, especially while Iran's true motives are still unclear. Despite what the current administration thinks, war should always be a last resort.\nWhile Delp believes that simply giving an order to go to war requires a great deal of courage he is mistaken. Fighting in a war requires courage, but it is something our president knows nothing about. It is also important that the commander in chief exhibit patience when dealing with possible hostile nations so a peaceful resolution has a possibility of being reached and the lives of many can be spared. As Delp accurately explains, Bush lacks this trait. I don't disagree with Delp's overall message; war with Iran could be on the horizon. However, unlike Delp, the prospect of another war doesn't make me "glad."
Thomas Brassell\nJunior
Immigrants must conform to rules\nYes ... I love the United States of America because it's diverse. That doesn't mean that diversity from other racial groups is necessarily strengthening our country when, in fact, a large majority of Latinos who come into this country are coming illegally. If Latinos wish to participate in political functions such as elections, they should be held responsible for doing so -- not us having to accommodate them. However, this is not the case, and although the society we live in likes to care for everyone and accept the people who actually live here, we don't. If Latinos want to live in this country and receive all the benefits they already do, they should (1) do so legally and (2) learn the most predominantly spoken language.
Brad Piechoski\nSenior
Hire Steve Alford, Hawk fan implores\nI am a University of Iowa alumnus writing in regards to the states of the University of Iowa and IU basketball programs. I was in Bloomington Jan. 29, the day of the most recent match-up between the two schools, and I could feel the community-wide longing to have Steve Alford return to IU as head basketball coach. \nI do not mean to gloat about us possessing what you covet. Indeed, such an attitude brings hope to many Iowa fans. While Steve Alford may be a good coach, he is not a good fit for the University of Iowa. Under Mr. Alford, our team has lost its reputation for hustle, toughness and effort. Perhaps IU shall be able to put his talents to better use.\nThe last half-decade has seen two of the proudest programs in the Big Ten slip to into its lower ranks. Let us, Hawkeyes and Hoosiers united, remedy this. I, along with my fellow Hawk fans, implore IU: Please hire Steve Alford. Just as you hope that this more natural union will return your team to glory, Hawk fans anxiously await our team's return to a style and passion befitting its history.
Joe Bachman\nYellow Springs, Ohio
Only one perspective\nAs a heterosexual man, I was extremely offended by your article in the Housing and Living Guide titled "IU yet to provide transgender dorm floors." It is a shame to see the IDS stoop to such pathetic levels of political correctness! This article asserts a myth that heterosexuals hate transgender people just because they are different, but it gives absolutely no evidence of it. With all three sources coming from the GBLT community, this article is little more than propaganda. As a former reporter, I understand the rule of having at least three sources, but this is just plain irresponsible, especially when the very first word of the article is "diversity." Based on my personal experiences here in Bloomington, I am furious how there is absolutely no heterosexual perspective! I will spare you the details, but I can tell you from my experiences that being hit on by fellow men is an absolutely horrifying experience! It has left me feeling disgusted, even worse than how I felt reading this article. This article has no perspective from heterosexuals and how we may feel when we are housed with a homosexual or a transgender person. This is a serious issue for both parties and one that needs to be thought out closely. For one thing, the article's definition of "transgender" conflicts with the definition given by www.dictionary.com as someone undergoing a change of genders. I am particularly offended by the following quote: "If transgender students are not included in the policy, it would be very difficult to control and prosecute those who commit hate crimes against them."\nThis quote is not accredited to anyone, so it is obviously the reporter editorializing. The IDS needs to get this information from the IU or Bloomington police department, who keep records of hate crimes. This brings me to my next point: There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that transgender people are persecuted. Besides this aforementioned quote, the most blatant example of this is the article is when Bill Shipton says, "We do receive bias-motivated incidents against transgender students." Yet the article moves on without any support or detail of this statement. I refuse to feel sorry for the GBLT community when I read such superficial, anecdotal quotes that were provided by this article.
Benjames Derrick\nAlumnus
Hookah story silly\nSurely the Indiana Daily Student can come up with a more important and intellectual story for its front page article than one on smoking hookah. Maybe it's time the University reinstates the free issues of The New York Times.
Michael Jones\nSenior
Ball State cares about student welfare\nAs a Ball State graduate, I would like to express my appreciation to Ball State's new president for foregoing her inauguration ceremony and using the money to create 15 student scholarships. In this difficult economic period, it is wonderful to see an administration that puts the needs of the student first.\nHowever, as a current IU student, I am disappointed that President Herbert did not display the same thoughtfulness when he was inaugurated last year. It is very discouraging that the IU administration seems more interested in keeping up appearances rather than helping students receive an education.\nAt least I can take comfort in the knowledge that one of the universities I will graduate from is more interested in the welfare of students than seemingly meaningless ceremonies.
Bryan-Mitchell Young\nGraduate Student
Philly fans are hard-core, true-blue\nI am writing in regards to an article that ran in the Jan. 25 edition of the IDS. Ryan Phillips' commentary ("Win it for the fans in Philly?") angered me as a Philadelphia native and a passionate Philadelphia sports fan.\nI am horribly offended by his idea that we "have the worst fans in all of sports - period." In no other city do people root as hard, cheer as loudly or invest as much in terms of time and emotions into their sports teams as do the people of the great city of Philadelphia. When Philadelphia's sports teams lose (and more specifically, the Eagles) the city goes into a week-long depression until the next game starts the following week. Aside from Boston Red Sox fans, what other team's fans have endured as much hardship and hard times as the Eagle's fans have, not only over the last four years, but the last 24 years, since the Eagles last made it to the Super Bowl? How many fans have stuck by their team, not just through the winning seasons but through the losing ones as well? I ask you, how many people in New England gave as much of a damn about the Patriots before they won their first Super Bowl three years ago? Even more, how many people cared about them the year between the Super Bowls, when they went 7-9 and failed to even reach the playoffs?\nI will concede that over the years, a few rowdy fans have given Philadelphia a bad reputation. There are certain things in the past that have not in any way been acts of good sportsmanship. But tell me this: Are we the only city in America that has ever done something stupid? Why hasn't Detroit gotten a bad rep after the infamous NBA incident a few months ago? Why is Philadelphia singled out every time as being the worst, the most classless and the dregs of the sports society?\nWell, let people think what they want about Philadelphia. Those from the great city know the truth and know that they would do anything and everything if it only meant a victory for their favorite teams, whether it be the 76ers, Phillies, Flyers and even more so the Eagles.\nThe "worst fans in all of sports" don't really care what Mr. Phillips thinks. They also happen to have the thickest skin of any sports fans in the nation and amongst all the criticism we have received over the many, many, many years, nothing will ever end their love for their sports teams. Nothing.
Brian Ossip\nJunior
Factual errors in computer treatise\nI'm writing to address some glaring errors in the column entitled, "Die DOS, Die," by Jeff Alstott. First, the article seems to claim that Microsoft has achieved its current stature by being "open-source." Open source licensing is defined so that, "the license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." Additionally, open source software requires that the "source code" of the software be distributed with it. Windows and other Microsoft products are always sold with heavy fees and strict licensing rules. The source code to such programs is never distributed with the product. \nSecond, this column states that most of the "Windows features were ripped straight out of the Mac." The author seems to further insinuate that Apple first developed the idea of controlling a computer using a graphical interface, but this statement comes with a glaring omission: The Xerox Company had developed the first GUI (graphical user interface) in the early 1970s, nearly 10 years before Apple (with the help of the original Xerox team) jumped on the bandwagon. \nThe third, and probably most obvious, issue with this column is the author's lack of knowledge of computer operating systems. UNIX, which the author refers to as "a freeware operating system," is obviously being confused for Linux, the open source OS originally developed by Linus Torvalds. While UNIX is trademarked by The Open Group, Linux is freely available to be tweaked and is supported by a strong online community. Also, the author makes a distinction between Windows, Mac and what he calls UNIX. The truth of the matter is that Apple has a UNIX-based core called DARWIN, which is the one of the sources of their success. \nI'm hoping that this author and others addressing this issue in the future will be more thorough in their fact-finding.
Aaron M. Bond\nSenior
Optimism on computer issues\nI enjoyed reading your article (Jeff Alstott) against Microsoft and its ubiquitous Windows product. It's great to see someone trying to open a dialogue about the situation Microsoft has placed Windows within our world. My opinion on the issue used to parallel yours, "Microsoft bad, Windows worse, Linux rocks." But now my opinion is quite a bit more optimistic.\nFirst of all, since Windows 2000, in my opinion Windows hasn't really been all that bad if you know what you're doing. The real problem with Windows as of late has been security. Windows works great and quickly for users who know how to prevent their computers from becoming virus-filled, spyware-bloated machines of indescribable pain and suffering. I do agree with you fully on one point: Firefox is the bee's knees. It stops spyware, stops pop-ups and is just as fast (if not faster) than that magic, antiquated blue E. I have to try very hard in Firefox to harm my PC, whereas in IE just being online is risk enough in itself. The only disadvantage of Firefox is that it does not do ActiveX, so IE has to be used to get to Windows Update, certain Web sites and tons of spyware (if you like that sort of thing). There's no reason not to use Firefox. Period.\nI also agree that there are other options. Many easy to use Linux distros like SUSE or Redhat are fun, free and work out of the box with little effort. They come with programs like OpenOffice.org, which can read and write Microsoft Office-compatible files with ease. Windows emulation on Linux is getting better and better every day. However, Linux has not yet reached the point (in my opinion) where it is easy enough for average users to install and do everything they want to do without tons of support.\nMacintoshes are ugly and overpriced. Neener Neener. They just aren't as customizable and easy to build as PCs are. When you buy a Mac, you're stuck with what Apple tells you is cool. I've added a fan to my PC that not only keeps things cool inside; it also deafens everyone on the outside. I tell people, "That's American Pride roaring in my awesome box."\nMicrosoft is nowhere near a model company, but they are a successful one. And thanks to antitrust law, Microsoft is checked when it comes to overmonopolizing tactics in newer versions of Windows. Despite its imperfections, there is no task or entertainment that I do not feel free and prepared to do on my Windows PC. Just saying that Windows is "slow, chunky and insecure" when problems in Windows usually derive from poor usage does not fix the problem, it just adds spite to a difficult-to-solve situation. You can't remove Windows from the world at this point, but you can make things better by helping people keep their PCs running great. And if your real aim is to sour Billy Gates' coffee, then just running Firefox is good enough if you ask me.
Christopher White\nFreshman
