President Bush, in his speech last week outlining his position on Iraq, evoked a comparison with John Kennedy's stand against Russia during the Cuban missile crisis. But President Kennedy stood up to Khrushchev's incursion into our own back yard with offensive weapons. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are said to be within the sovereign bounds of that country. And when the major television networks of our own country fail to carry the President's speech on Iraq, how can we expect this information to be spread to the people of the world?
The existence of the Soviet weapons in Cuba in 1962 was clearly demonstrated to the people with aerial photographs. The presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq not only has not been clearly shown, many in the intelligence community dispute their existence. The international community, including the OAS, supported Kennedy's strategy. So far the usual coalition of countries, save Britain, have failed to back Bush's plan of action. The United States' blockade of Cuba was clearly defensive. Had Kennedy first attacked the missile sites in Cuba, or the seat of the Cuban government, nuclear war might well have been the knee-jerk response from the Soviets. But we were wiser then.
And wisdom is required now. Broad international backing, politically if not militarily, is needed. The UN's weapons inspection team must be given a chance to resume its task under existing or modified UN resolutions. If these measures are taken and Saddam persists in denying the international community its right to defend itself against his rogue regime, then force may indeed be required. But not until we have tried, with collective political resolve, to back this dictator down, as we did Khrushchev 40 years ago. Pinckney Roberts '61 served in the U.S. Navy in the Atlantic during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He can be reached at proberts3@sc.rr.com.
Read More
Princeton, practice what you preach: SPIA graduate students on protest and dialogue
Guest Contributors"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
Faculty call on the Board of Trustees to act in face of hunger strike
Guest Contributors“The Princeton University administration should understand that the law loses its moral force when it becomes so detached from ethics and basic human decency. The administration is sacrificing its moral sense and its purported affiliation to human decency in the name of upholding arbitrarily designed and implemented campus rules and regulations.”
“The Princeton University administration should understand that the law loses its moral force when it becomes so detached from ethics and basic human decency. The administration is sacrificing its moral sense and its purported affiliation to human decency in the name of upholding arbitrarily designed and implemented campus rules and regulations.”
Letter to the Editor: The gross manufacturing of narrative
Sarah Sakha"The Gaza Solidarity Encampment, a space we have created together, is an unwavering testament to community and care in the face of apathy, keeping each other safe by growing large, impenetrable, and powerful. And we have done so in spite of a larger apparatus working against students."
"The Gaza Solidarity Encampment, a space we have created together, is an unwavering testament to community and care in the face of apathy, keeping each other safe by growing large, impenetrable, and powerful. And we have done so in spite of a larger apparatus working against students."
