Panelists focus on politics, ethics of war with Iraq
Some say other views needed to be said to make debate effective
By Sarah Krebs
Staff Reporter

While the panel on the politics and ethics of the war against Iraq unanimously agreed that the United States needs to look beyond war, many audience members said they would have liked to have heard both sides of the issue during Tuesday night’s forum in the Student Center Lounge.

The forum, which was hosted by student organizations from TCU and Brite Divinity School, was held to increase awareness and educate people about the ethical issues in the war against Iraq, said Heather Patriacca, a Brite Divinity representative.

Bree Lock, a sophomore photography major, said she agreed with most of the panelist opinions but would have liked to hear the counter argument. Seeing the audience get involved was interesting, she said.

“The fact that people voiced their dissenting opinions so vehemently and were passionate about their opposing opinions was great,” Lock said. “It was pretty heated, and I’ve never seen anything like that before.”

Patriacca said she felt the discussion on the war with Iraq will continue beyond this week’s scheduled events because at least 200 people showed up and were willing to discuss the situation.

“Regardless of which side of the view the panel was on, people left (Tuesday night) obviously more aware and more educated about the history and issues involving the war with Iraq,” Patriacca said.

Despite invitations, pro-war faculty members and campus organizations declined the chance to refute the three panelists: Jack Hill, a Christian ethics professor; Juan Floyd Thomas, a history professor; and Kenneth Cracknell, a Brite Divinity theologian, said Katie Low, an intern for University Ministries which helped sponsor the forum.

Hill said Americans need to know about the prospect of the escalation of war to an all-out attack on the regime in Iraq, the change in Bush’s security strategy from the 50-year policy of deterrence to preemptive war against future threats and the fact that this war is not justifiable.

Hill said a preemptive strike against Iraq would only be right if there was a just cause, if it was a last resort, if we could be reasonably successful and if it is proportional to the threat posed.

“A simple fear cannot justify preemption,” Hill said. “And the U.S. military presence there has pressured Saddam (Hussein) so much that we are winning.”

Thomas said he is against the war because of the hypocrisy in the foreign policy of the Bush administration. He said Bush has a vendetta against Hussein and because there is no actual evidence Iraq is a threat.

“In 1950 George Orwell wrote ‘Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful and to give an appearance of solidity to pure whim’,” Thomas said. “As our president gave his last state of the union address, he commented that it would be the goal of this presidency to persecute Hussein.”

Thomas said he felt the war was more of Bush verses Hussein and that Bush is seeking to vindicate his father’s presidency.

s.d.krebs@tcu.edu