Southern Appalachian Digital Collections

Western Carolina University (20) View all

Western Carolinian Volume 45 Number 20

  • wcu_publications-10042.jpg
3 / 20
Item
  • From Page 2 I truly thank God for this experience which has taught me much about respecting others. We are all individuals with a role, however small or great, in directing the flow of the life we touch around us. Working side by side with the janitors (who are mostly natives of these Southern Appalachian Mountains) has opened my eyes to the history of the mountains and how these people became integrated into the industrialized and technical systems, and of how they had once lived self-sufficiently, farming and trading labor for labor. Their land was then bought up by the Lumber companies, the University and Floridians who developed summertime resorts and posted no trespassing signs. For hours I've enjoyed listening to stories of the Great Depression days, sawmills, the railroad and logging, moonshine and coonhunting. Telling jokes and tall tales is a talent among these warmhearted folks. Finding difficult times living independently, it is comforting for me to have such friends who have helped me out in many ways. Sincerely, Susan Thomas Who's right? Dear Editor, lt would seem that there is an inherent conflict in our world between the rights of the individual and the rights of the state and society. The current situation concerning our military forces and a possible return to the draft points this out clearly, as well as revealing my ambivilant feelings towards this issue. On the one hand we have the individual. The individual has the right to live his life as he sees fit so long as his actions do not interfere with the rights of others to do the same. No person or institution should be able to tell him how to live his life, to act. where to go, what to do, etc. On the other hand we have the state and society. The state has a right to defend itself from foreign agression in most cases and an obligation to protect its citizens from foreign dangers. It appears in our present circumstance that the state will be hard pressed to fulfill this obligation because of the THE WESTERN CAROLINIAN/February 14,1980/Page 3 weakened state of our military forces, a condition which will not be improved upon in the near future. One way to improve our defensive (and 1 mean Defensive) capabilities would be to reintroduce forced military service. This method would probably be the least difficult to implement and the most effective i" the shortest period of time. Since the most logical (and perhaps sole) method of doing this would be to draft, the state has the right to do so. However, as I stated earlier the individual has the right to live as he pleases. This includes the right to resist anv and all authority which interferes with this right. So we see that we have a case of conflicting RIGHTS, neither side is wrong. The state has the right to force the individual to serve under certain circumstances and the individual has the right to refuse and resist. This is the key to my ambivilant feelings. On the one hand I recognize the state's right to force me to serve in its military. I also recognize my right and the right of others to refuse, resist and flee. The conflict is absolute and unavoidable. Sincerely, Richard M. Johnson Sexist pigs! The True View By Lee Grant The line is being drawn in Pakistan. That Is what Is being stated by President Carter and his National Security advisor. The question is, does the Pakistani government want us In their country? The answer seems to be NO, but that does not matter to the administration. The people of Pakistan are asking for arms and supplies but not for men to do their fighting. It seems to me that if that is what these people want, then if we are really Interested in supporting them, then we should only give them arms. Wouldn't it seem strange to you, Mr. Rogers, to land troops in a country to fight for them (supposedly] when in reality they are saying, Jimmy, please, I'd rather do It myself. Are we supporting them or are we just using them as pawns to get back at the Soviet Union? You have to remember, my friend, that recently the Pakistani people have been less than friendly to the U.S. It was around three months ago when the citizens of Pakistan attacked our embassy and nearly burned it to the ground. Does this action seem to be one of a country that wants us to send more people, this time armed soldiers into their country? Does this sound like a country who would want to take orders from American officers who don't know the people's background and beliefs? Or do you think that the Pakistani people never heard of Vietnam and how the American, the Chinese, and the Russians turned a beautiful country into a barren land? Of course you and I won't have to worry about it as Mr. Carter Is only concerned with drafting kids between 18-20 years old. One day some kid will be walking down the aisle with his high school diploma and 6 months later he will be walking through a mine field. You must give Carter credit though, when he picked the age group he didn't let the election year's politics come Into play. He just looked at the statistics and calmly picked the age group that has the lowest percentage of active voters. Just don't let this action fool you, Mr. Rogers. Two months after the elections In November and if, God forbid, Jimmy is still President, then he will probably announce that he will raise the draft age to 26 or 28. However, I guess if we are at war already it won't matter to you, you will probably be the first one to sign up anyway as your patriotic duty. One question, Mr. Rogers, if we do go to Pakistan against their own people's wishes and we push back the red menace, are we going to occupy the country to keep the Russians from coming back or are we going to push on to Afghanistan? I guess the only solution is comparable to one Archie Bunker would use to stop skyjackers, that being to arm all of the passengers, thereby creating a balance of power and at the end of the flight collect up all of the guns. Well, we've tried before to arm countries, Iran and Somoza's little country, and both backfired. But maybe if we used nuclear weapons-but then again who would try to collect them when the crisis is over? By Pat Rogers The Right Line Mr. Grant, once again you look at a clearly defined policy of the Carter Administration and rewrite that policy to fit your own needs. You claim the White House wants to put troops in Pakistan. This is absolute hogwash. The Carter Administration's policy toward Pakistan is one of military assistance in the form of defensive weapons. At no point has the Administration of the Department of Defense advocated the placement of offensive weapons or American troops in that country. And for a country that you say wants to defend themselves without our assistance, the Pakistanis certainly played the perfect host to National Security Advisor Zbiginiew Brzezinski. As a matter of fact, the Pakistanis turned down a $400 million offer of assistance as "peanuts" and requested a package of $1.5 billion. And Lee, you say the Pakistani people have no real love for us Americans. I have found no substantial evidence to verify that. Sure, a few hundred emotional Muslims attacked the U.S. embassy in Pakistan after being brought to a frenzy by an anti-American speech by Iran's Ayahtolla Khomeini. But is Pakistan a country of a few hundred people? No. I'm sure the citizens of Afghanistan would love to have had some good 'ole American military assistance when the big bear came rumbling in from the north. And Lee, tell me please, why must all you McGovemists jump at the chance to put into action your Fiberalistic [and quite trite] use to the Vietnam conflict to condemn ail attempts by the U.S. to help stabalize the world that we MUST live in. I did not and cannot in any way support the conflict in Vietnam in the same context as I support aid to Pakistan. Vietnam didn't have direct military intervention, for it didn't pose an economic or military threat to the United States. To equate Vietnam with the events in Afghanistan or Pakistan is not at all responsible. We are now talking about direct military action by the most awesome aggressor the world has ever known. This military assistance for Pakistan is an answer to the direct threat which the Soviet Union poses. You once again call for Isolationism. Up until the early part of the twentieth century, America advocated isolation from the problems of the rest of the world, but to no avail. We had to make a stand in the so called "war to end all wars." Twenty years later we kept turning our head from Europe until again it was too late. History shows that America does not respond forcefully until she is directly threatened. Are we going to wait passively while WWIII comes closer to becoming reality? Do we turn our heads and open the doors to Pakistan and Yugoslavia, so that the Soviets might again be "asked" In: NO! We respond now! We slam the door shut! Lee, why do you think of me as a war-monger? I do not wish to see 19 and 20 year olds yanked to the front any more than you do. But unlike you, I have an understanding of the geopolitical realities of today's world. I will not wait for the Soviets to be "asked into Ontario to support the move to secede from Canada before I will support my President's policies. I can't imagine what it will take to gather your realization and support. Dear Editor, I would like to make a comment on the exercise room in Reid Gym. Since this spot is frequently visited by males, it seems that they like to monopolize the equipment. Being a female, I can't help but think that a couple of them are sexist pigs. Women have just as much right to be in there as they have. I hope that as the weather gets warmer, more and more women will come in there and we can show those men. Next time 1 hear "Where do you think YOU'RE going with that bench?" or "Hurry up, I want to use that machine," I might show them what 1 can do with a couple of punches to their beer-bloated bellies. I believe I could do it, too. And I am not alone in my opinions. Sincerely, Celeste Carson No mail Dear Editor, I live in Reynolds and I am writing this letter to complain about our mail service. My box has been broken for two months and even though he has had the parts all semester, the mail clerk "Hasn't gotten around to it vet." My roommate's mail was tied up all semester and he finally pried it out of the mail clerk today-it was in his room the whole time. I've had friends who didn't get mail last semester at all--in fact, they didn't even get boxes. I don't expect this letter to do much except maybe motivate our tired-ass mail clerk into doing his job. Thanks, Bill Ciccolclla 337-A Reynolds _ r\M\^W^& As-trol-o-jat-k /8-s-tral-a-jerk n 1: a 20 th century medievalist who divines the m- ■f luetics* o\ -the. st^rs and planets. &r\ human aWairs 3: an earth -brm with -theeat& eiar« &$ ana brains in the. za.mt vlitt 3: one. who will climt-co great hftjfchti to prove nothing
Object