Click to read about the best places to eat on campus, freshman packing tips, and how to keep in touch with friends.

Don’t be fooled by nuclear debate; it’s all about the oil

I love our president. Darn that Congress for limiting a president’s time in office to two terms, or I would vote for him again and again and again.

No, not really.

It’s unbelievable what George W. Bush has said regarding unilateral action against Iraq. Go in without U.N. approval? Sure. But what about the United Nations? Shouldn’t the United States do what they say? Heck no.

Furious George thinks he’s in the Old West, duking it out with the world community over a game of poker and a bottle of whiskey. He’s sorely mistaken.

Bush and Co. are going to do things how they want no matter what anyone says. They talk about pre-emptive strikes, talk about how it is the only way to stop Iraq from launching attacks on America.

Um, I don’t know about that. First of all, there is the fact that without a U.N. resolution supporting the action, it is totally and unequivocally illegal in the eyes of established international law. Secondly, modern examples show how pre-emption could have caused more harm than good for the United States.

Take the Cuban Missile Crisis. If President Kennedy had decided, in the “safety of the nation,” to lob a bunch of missiles into Cuba to destroy the silos or to torpedo the ships coming from Russia, it’s fair to say the reaction from Russia would have been less than cordial. It’s even more fair to say that they probably would have pushed their own little red button and unleashed hellfire and brimstone on the United States.

So, Kennedy didn’t do that. Instead, he got an 11th hour diplomatic solution to the crisis. Bam. Crisis averted.

And speaking of pre-emptive strikes, if Bush is really going to follow this doctrine, then he should remove the crosshairs from Iraq and plant them firmly on the city of Pyongyang in North Korea.

The North Koreans definitely pose a much bigger immediate threat to the security of the United States than Iraq does. They came right out and told the world, “Yeah, we have a nuclear weapons program, and it’s going along swimmingly; cheers.”

With North Korea being in the “axis of evil,” one would think the cry for war would be just as loud, if not louder, for North Korea as it is for Iraq.

But of course it isn’t, and if you were expecting it would be, you’re a fool. You know why? Because North Korea is a country of starving people who happen to be building the bomb. There is no incentive to attack North Korea because North Korea has nothing to offer us.

Iraq, on the other hand, has countless barrels of oil just waiting to be pillaged. President Bush tells us that we have to strike at Iraq first “in the name of peace.” Does that sound perverted to anyone else? And how is a strike on Iraq going to make my life in Tampa any safer? Perhaps he means that by killing tens of thousands of innocent people, I’m going to have that much more air available for me to breathe. God bless America.

Don’t be fooled. The war with Iraq is not about the war on terror, our safety or securing peace. It’s a war over oil and not much more. Once people realize this, they will see how wrong a preemptive strike would be.

Joe Roma is a junior majoringin political