Joe Quillin's letter titled "Bush's speech had 'hopeful' message," (SN 1/25) implied that the invasion of Iraq sends a message of hope for the world. He forgets that the president's initial justification for war was the imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction - a threat found illusory. Only when we are in too deep to back out are we told that the real reason for war was not our safety, but liberation of the Iraqi people and the spreading of freedom.

During his inaugural speech President Bush said, "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors." This kind of rhetoric reminds us of the Vietnam War under circumstances eerily similar to those in Iraq: a determined enemy, fighting an unconventional war and a population seemingly more opposed to our presence than that of its "oppressors."

We lost to the Viet Cong despite our more technically advanced military: a prospect all too possible here. Communism was not toppled by war; it eventually imploded from its economic inefficiencies. There will never be peace and stability in the Middle East until we diminish our dependence on the oil that supports repressive regimes and has deterred economic collapse in the region. Unfortunately, developing alternative energy sources seems to be Bush's last priority.

Mr. Quillin also says we should have gone into Iraq "a long time ago" because Saddam Hussein ruled by fear and with an iron fist. Under this logic we should now attack a long list of regimes, including the Khartoum Government of Sudan, the Ayatollah in Iran and our good friends: the Saudi royal family.

Call me pessimistic, but unlike our president, I will never forget to think with reason and common sense when the lives of American soldiers are at stake.

Paul Stewart
interdisciplinary studies in social science junior