The Current Online

A helping hand, right up the sidewalk

by Sean Graham

Student LaVoucher Bai at the Learning Center (Sean Graham/The Current).

Record-breaking traffic throughout the Longview Learning Center is keeping the dedicated staff and tutors extremely busy. In the Writing Center, more than 933 people attended sessions designed to improve skills in the 2008 fall semester.

Opened in the late 1970s to lend help to any writing assignment, the Writing Center has only continued to grow. After 10 years of service, writing center director Becky Foster believes students’ views on what the center is here for are misguided.

“Every writer needs feedback during the process of writing, and the writing center is a safe place to get meaningful, helpful feedback without worrying about grades,” Foster said. “It should not be thought of as remedial, but good writers know it is a good place to be, too.”  [...]

Former Current Editor Hebah Amin is reviewing for UCM’s Muleskinner. Find her stories here.

Bush’s Iraq stance is not groovy

by HEBAH AMIN

By definition, pacifism is, “opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes.” A pacifist, therefore, is someone who holds these ideals.
Yes, I’m a pacifist. Unfortunately, our blindly chauvinistic culture has deemed this a bad thing. It isn’t. It simply means that I have faith in other, nonviolent means of resolving conflict, methods that preferably won’t take (as many) innocent lives in the process.
The U.N. has threatened “serious consequences” if Saddam Hussein does not comply with inspections guidelines. Obviously, the consequences are so terrible that nobody can bring themselves to elaborate for the general public. This hard-lined stance leaves little room for compromise.
Needless to say, I am against launching a war on Iraq for several reasons. One of these reasons is that I think the government is acting on some shaky premises. First, the Al-Qaeda connection. Officials have blustered on about the link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. When pressed for details, they cannot offer anything firm to back their stance. A few questioning political experts have suggested that the link is nonexistent. In the post-September 11 atmosphere, however, Osama bin Laden acts as a master code for permission to go to war.
Except that this time, Bush isn’t getting the backing that he wants. Why? Maybe we’re ready to move out of victim mode. Maybe people are realizing that, hey, the rest of the world doesn’t hate us as much as Bush would like us to think. People are beginning to see through the demagoguery.
One method of eliciting an emotional, knee-jerk reaction is the mention of nuclear and biological weapons—weapons of mass destruction. People are afraid of devastation similar to that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and with good reason. Allow me to point out something most people are unaware of: the two countries with the most WMDs are the United States and Russia, neither of which has a squeaky clean record regarding the use of such facilities.

By definition, pacifism is, “opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes.” A pacifist, therefore, is someone who holds these ideals.
Yes, I’m a pacifist. Unfortunately, our blindly chauvinistic culture has deemed this a bad thing. It isn’t. It simply means that I have faith in other, nonviolent means of resolving conflict, methods that preferably won’t take (as many) innocent lives in the process.
The U.N. has threatened “serious consequences” if Saddam Hussein does not comply with inspections guidelines. Obviously, the consequences are so terrible that nobody can bring themselves to elaborate for the general public. This hard-lined stance leaves little room for compromise.
Needless to say, I am against launching a war on Iraq for several reasons. One of these reasons is that I think the government is acting on some shaky premises. First, the Al-Qaeda connection. Officials have blustered on about the link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. When pressed for details, they cannot offer anything firm to back their stance. A few questioning political experts have suggested that the link is nonexistent. In the post-September 11 atmosphere, however, Osama bin Laden acts as a master code for permission to go to war.
Except that this time, Bush isn’t getting the backing that he wants. Why? Maybe we’re ready to move out of victim mode. Maybe people are realizing that, hey, the rest of the world doesn’t hate us as much as Bush would like us to think. People are beginning to see through the demagoguery.
One method of eliciting an emotional, knee-jerk reaction is the mention of nuclear and biological weapons—weapons of mass destruction. People are afraid of devastation similar to that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and with good reason. Allow me to point out something most people are unaware of: the two countries with the most WMDs are the United States and Russia, neither of which has a squeaky clean record regarding the use of such facilities.

by HEBAH AMIN

UN Weapons inspections have been a hot topic of discussion as of late. While Iraq has agreed to host United Nations weapons inspectors, the security council has not agreed upon terms for the long-persued inspection.
Arguments for and arguments against the procedure have been stated. A lot of people believe that weapons inspection may serve as an alternative to a military attack.
Past weapons inspections in Iraq have proven unsuccessful, says Jonathan B. Tucker of the United States Institute of Peace, stating his case for weapons inspection, at a Washington DC press conference, earlier this month. Tucker was a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspector in February1995. His job was to assess the “level of Iraq’s indigenous capabilities in biotechnology equipment.” In other words, the goal of weapons inspections is to seek out and destroy biological and nuclear weapons, as well as monitor weapons programs and factories with production potential.
The procedure included a discovery phase, in which inspectors tried to compile a complete record of Iraq’s past programs and suppliers, as well as factories that were engaged in legitimate production but could easily be used to make weapons.
One example is the “complex growth media,” used for culturing patient “specimens.” Officials discovered that in 1988, Iraq exported nearly 39 tons of the material, which can also be used to grow anthrax bacteria. Discrepancies in reports and withholding of information by Iraq led inspectors to conclude that a bulk of the product was being exported for the latter purpose.
In the second stage of inspections, UN agencies UNSCOM and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) set out to destroy the chemical and biological weapons they found, as well as facilities involved in their manufacture.
The final objective was an ongoing monitoring and verification (OMV), in which the dual-use facilities would be kept under close watch, with an eye on imports and exports. This included installing video cameras in the plants, if deemed necessary. In reality, the three phases had the tendency to overlap.
Where the inspections failed, said Tucker, was in the fact that Iraqi officials withheld valid information and supplied inaccurate information. Inspectors were not then able to make a comprehensive search. The inspectors, Tucker says, were also intimidated and subjected to Iraqi counterintelligence measures.
According to Robert Gallucci, former assistant secretary of state for political, military affairs and deputy executive chairman of UNSCOM, points out that there have been no inspectors in Iraq since 1998 and that evidence proves that Iraq has been working to improve their weapons and ballistic missile program.
Gallucci proposes enforcing more vigorous inspection program, including a no-fly, no-drive zone to limit the opportunities for covert activities during the routine. Tucker agreed, but balked at the prospect of bringing armed troops.