Editor:

I didn’t know who to believe in the Feb. 25 point/counterpoint column (“Are anti-war activists motivated by political persuasion?”): Jasyn Jones’ claim that demonstrations were absent during President Clivnton’s military action or Kathleen Gurr’s claim that demonstrations were just as present.

So I looked it up in the newspapers on LexisNexis, and guess what: Other than the protests that occurred in Haiti, there was hardly any opposition in the streets in America during Clinton’s military action in Haiti in 1994 and 1995. People did protest Clinton’s action in Iraq in 1998 and in the Balkans in 1999, but it was a mere fraction compared to the protests that occurred last year. The reason for this is because, just as Gurr explained, “Clinton’s actions were never as ruthless and most people did not view his motives as questionable.” I wonder why. It’s not because Clinton’s actions were ruthless-they were useless, unlike President Bush’s actions that have made a difference.

Gurr was also correct that “Bush’s haughty arrogance is every peace protestor’s worst nightmare,” but not for the reasons she stated. Peace activists are afraid that if the leader of a capitalist country liberates an oppressed people and establishes some form of democracy, then their message of socialism is dead-just like the hundreds of millions of human beings who have died by socialist systems.

Bart Gatrell

Graduate Student,

International Relations