In response to Nathan Borst’s commentary on Feb. 13, titled “Peacenik endeavors support Hussein’s regime,” I couldn’t help but notice the either or fallacy that has plagued the country since Sept. 11: You’re either with us or against us.

In this case, the “us” is U.S. citizens feeling that immediate war with Iraq is a favorable option. Allow me to first state that I do not support Saddam Hussein’s regime. Few people do. However, I don’t believe there is a viable plan that has been proposed at this time. Apparently, neither does the United Nations.

In the article, it is mentioned that there was little protest during the conflict in Serbia.

I think it should be remembered that any action taken in that nation was as a police action with the support of the United Nations.

So why would other countries disagree with similar action in Iraq? Perhaps it is because the proposed military action seems poorly thought out.

Perhaps the problem lies in the current reasoning of the U.S. government. Colin Powell’s recent speech to the United Nations drew heavily on a 19-page British intelligence document. It has since been acknowledged by the British government that eleven of these pages were plagiarized from a California graduate student’s thesis. This in itself is only troubling in terms of plagiarism, but realize this: The paper was twelve years old.

I hope that the countries of the United Nations can find a way to dispose of Hussein’s regime, but any military response should be undertaken with the approval of the world, and with a well-planned course of action, not the sort of planning that this evidence implies.

Michael Harper

Senior

Computer Science