Letters: Disarming nukes, kicking ass

Posted on April 22, 2010, at 2:38 a.m.

U.S. must retain nuclear arsenal or risk appearing weak

Laila Sholtz-Ames, the author of “Obama’s nuclear stance is on-target for world peace,” (April 12) expresses her agreement with Obama’s recent decision to abide by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, an agreement that prohibits the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.

Obama signed an additional agreement with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, agreeing to reduce their countries’ nuclear weapons by 30 percent in the next seven years. Sholtz-Ames said this is a “dramatic step — securing peace between two former Cold War enemies now working together to create a world with fewer nuclear weapons.”

I disagree. I believe Sholtz-Ames’ arguments about how people disagree with Obama’s policy because it “shows a sign of weakness” are entirely invalid. Do you think the majority of American veterans, who fought hard and gave their lives for us to have our freedom, would support Obama’s decision?

No. They would say it is a sign of weakness, and once you show weakness, your counterparts begin to believe they have a chance to win the battle. It is the same in all aspects of life.

If you show the most weakness, you become the prey and your enemies the hunter. In a world that recently has been put into frenzy by rogue leaders who boast about nuclear weapon advancement in their countries, is it really the best time to cut back on the American stockpile of weapons?

It sounds like an invitation for those with the wrong purposes to begin to use nuclear weapons to their advantage.

With terrorist groups knowing nuclear weapons could possibly be available from these countries, it should only increase the awareness of the people of the United States. If we decrease our supply of nuclear weapons, we will become the prey and lose the advantage of the intimidation we acquired after World War II.

Before the war, we were the prey and were attacked on our soil. We were not the dominant military power we are today. History will only repeat itself, unless America remains at the forefront of military strength, technology and power.

In recent years, the United States has tried to change its foreign policy to be more appealing to other countries, but if you are the “top dog,” the others will come after you and try to take your position.

Why willingly give up an advantage for the sake of looking appealing to others, who may later try to take your spot? I am sure there are veterans rolling over in their graves at the sight of the people in charge of our country destroying our chances of what they once fought so hard for: freedom.

Sierra Leifson

Student

Reader opens up a can on ‘Kick-Ass’ film review

Please make sure the articles you publish have decent proofreading. Kyle Kernan’s article (“Film review: ‘Kick-Ass,’” April 19) is all but unreadable because of simple verb misuse, word order issues and poor word choice.

I found this article to be highly offensive. I have never seen the movie, but probably will now simply because I have no respect for Mr. Kernan’s opinion, and we’re going to talk about it.

Don’t like my patronizing tone? I’m not shocked. I used the pronoun “we” there to deliberately evoke a feeling of collective agreement. The only problem with this strategy is this: It is an opinion. Readers do not necessarily agree with the author’s views.

So please do not open an opinion piece directed at people who haven’t seen a movie, as most reviews are, by including your audience in the broad, insulting statements of your own opinions, Mr. Kernan.

My next point is the lack of coherency of the overall piece. Mr. Kernan jumps around from describing characters, to his opinion, to the plot, to more opinion, back to the plot and then some more characters.

The piece would have been far easier to follow had it flowed better — perhaps characters, plot, and finally, your opinion. I would likely not have felt so offended by its inclusion in my university newspaper had it borne some semblance of an editor’s touch.

Heck, I’d have been happy had Mr. Kernan convinced me he’d reread it after he’d finished writing it.

Unfortunately, his poor choices of verbs and overuse of the stem “glory” prove this to be a vain wish on my part. In particular, Mr. Kernan’s misuse of the word “irony” irks me to my deepest core — and not in a pleasant, CNN way either. I expect the people on that network to be stupid and egregious.

Mr. Kernan never defined the irony, simply stated that it existed, which shows that he, like many before him, has no clear idea of what irony is.

Caitlin Newcomb

Student

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 22nd, 2010, 2:38 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.