 |
Battle
lines drawn at debate
Panelists
discuss the merits of Iraq invasion
All
the panelists agreed on one thing: The timetable for the
transition of power needed to be pushed back.
By
Julia Mae Jorgensen
A little
more than a year after the U.S.-led war in Iraq, students
marked the date by engaging in an impassioned debate Wednesday
night arguing the merits of the invasion.
“This is a horrible situation we’ve gotten ourselves
into,” said Sean Martin, a senior radio-TV-film major
who argued against the war.
The debate centered on four topics: international support,
weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi sovereignty and preemptive
strikes.
Emotions escalated and one audience member, Brett Grayson,
a sophomore political science major, told Brubaker and
Martin to backtrack.
“I think you need to do more homework,” Grayson
said.
The debate panelists were Martin; Jeff Brubaker, a junior
history major; Patrick Jennings, a junior economics major;
and Tyler Fultz, a freshman history major. It was moderated
by Daryl Schmidt, chairman of the religion department,
and included opportunities for audience questions and
response.
“You don’t need complete consensus to act in
one’s interests,” Jennings said, arguing for
the war.
“It seems to be reminiscent of elementary school,”
Martin said. “I don’t think Bush had international
support to go to war.”
Christopher Carson, a junior mechanical engineering major
and audience member, said that Bush’s form of international
law is dangerous.
“Most nations will find it is in their best interest
to abide by international law,” Carson said.
Fultz, who debated with Jennings, said that the Bush administration
was right to make the conclusions they did based on evidence
about weapons.
“Basically I think to not act would have been a catastrophic
lack on part of the Bush administration,” Fultz said.
All of the panelists came to a consensus that the timetable
for the transition of power needed to be pushed back.
Brubaker said the timetable set aside for control being
turned over to the Iraqis is too short.
“These are groups that have hated each other for
centuries and they’re supposed to unite in three
months?” Brubaker said.
Tino Chitsinde, a junior economics major, said the United
States should have had a more concrete plan before invading.
“We cannot expect a change to happen overnight,”
Chitsinde said.
Fultz and Jennings ended the debate by saying the war
was justified.
“The region and the world are better off without
him,” Fultz said.
Martin agreed with Fultz that the world was safer, but
added there is another threat.
“The world is safer without Saddam, but we’ve
still got Bush,” Martin said.
|
|
|
|
|
Raveen
Bhasin/Staff Photographer
|
| Senior
radio-TV-film and sociology major Sean Martin (right)
responds to a question involving America’s
ongoing role in the war in Iraq as Peace Action
President Jeff Brubaker (left) listens during the
debate Thursday in the Student Center Lounge. |
|
|
