Characterization of peace effort insulting, slanderous, incorrect
Last week, anonymous posters appeared all over campus, calling the MIT Peace Center an "Appeasement Center." These posters spread an unjust stereotype of the peace movement.
The sponsors of the Jan. 26 rally in Washington, DC, (the Emergency Coalition for Peace, Justice and Non-Intervention in the Middle East) specifically condemn Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and they support the United Nation's program of economic sanctions against Iraq.
I cannot speak for everyone who opposes the invasion of Iraq, but my impression is that most anti-war activists take this position. Is this "appeasement?" Quite the opposite. In attacking Kuwait, Iraq's main goal was economic. Saddam Hussein wanted oil fields claimed by both Iraq and Kuwait. He also wanted to stop Kuwaiti over-production of oil, which was driving down the price of oil, thereby weakening Iraq's economy.
Economic sanctions alone would cause Iraq to lose far more money than it has gained by its annexation of Kuwait. Sanctions are not appeasement; they are punishment. Are they enough punishment? This is where the real debate lies. I hope that everyone in the MIT community takes part in this debate, so that we all may learn what is truly the best course of action for the United States in the gulf.
But slandering one's political opponents does not serve the truth, and it certainly does not help American soldiers in the Middle East.
Seth Gordon '91->