It is possible to understand how people can support the troops without supporting the war and to not be hypocritical. The troops in Iraq have a job to do. Their chain of command has ordered them to remove Saddam Hussein and to create peace, allowing for the development of a democratic society. When someone has a duty they should perform that duty to the best of their ability, thus why I support the troops. They are there to do a job they have been ordered to do. Our troops do not have a choice on their orders. Thus, it is not hypocritical to support someone for doing something when they do not have a choice on their task.

Kastner is right; I did make the claim that the war is defending the rights of the Iraqis, but I never claimed that this was our original intent for the war. I have absolutely no problem with the American government attempting to provide stability and peace in other parts of the world. Why ensure peace by providing more military aid than humanitarian?

In regards to fighting terrorists in Iraq, I would like to make note that there was never a connection with Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Not until we invaded Iraq did al-Qaeda set off for Iraq to target Americans. It may be better for us to fight terrorists in Iraq, but I doubt it is better for the Iraqi people to have two groups of outsiders having a war on their soil.

Kastner you are exactly right that Hussein was a horrible leader. He ruled by fear, and thus to maintain his power he killed anyone he didn't like or who opposed him in order to maintain his power. This does not justify his actions by any means. It does provide a rational for his violent nature. I must admit killing people in your surrounding area is much different than having a war with the greatest military power in the world which exists over seas. We also broke the Geneva Convention when we invaded Iraq. I never heard any proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or had the potential to create such weapons. I heard it was implied and strongly suggested, but I have yet to see any proof of that claim. Is this another lie that became truth? Regardless of the status of these weapons, Hussein and al-Qaeda were not associates with each other. Thus there would be no reason for Hussein to provide them with weapons. I thought terrorists usually used weapons we left behind in previous times of military aid?

One can not claim that peace in the Middle East will provide the United States with protection from terrorists. It is very easy for an area to be peaceful towards its neighbors and despise others whom are farther away. In short, we are striving to ensure the freedoms of the Iraqi people, without any guarantee of our security.

Brian Koch is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences.

This viewpoint appeared in The Marquette Tribune on Mar. 17 2005.