There seems to be a misunderstanding of terms and some wacky logic in Alan Rhodes’ letter Feb. 28. A border dispute is a disagreement in where the lines between nations are drawn on a map.

Since the United States doesn’t border on either Iraq or Kuwait, it shouldn’t have had a position on the Iraq-Kuwait border dispute. It does, however, have a very firm position on the annexation of a legitimate government.

Suppose the United States had a border dispute with Canada, claiming a small part of eastern Canada had historical ties to the United States.

I don’t believe many nations would have a position on the dispute. However, if the United States invaded and annexed Canada, I would hope the entire planet would cry foul and come to Canada’s side.

Rhodes explains the Emir of Kuwait is not a representative of the “American way of life.” No, he’s not; he is a representative of the Arab and Kuwaiti way of life.

An ideology that allows for and encourages polygamy. No, Kuwait is not a democracy, it is a young nation, carved from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and molded from a people that were basically nomads that lacked centralized leadership.

And it appears to me, Kuwaitis are quite happy with their government and that government is working well with its people. I don’t see mobs of Kuwaiti protesters calling for the overthrow of the Emir.

I don’t see a violent civil war within Kuwait. I do see Kuwaiti soldiers, resistance fighters and citizens celebrating the liberation of their homeland.

Kuwaiti citizens have been looted, raped, imprisoned, terrorized and murdered.

Were America’s sons and daughters being sacrificed for the Emir? No, America’s sons and daughters were fighting abroad to defend a very American principle: Freedom.

Tim Olsen

Junior

Computer Science