www.printz.usm.edu By  Whitney Dennis Staff Writer

Community members, USM students, faculty and staff crowded a Joseph Greene Hall auditorium  to voice opinions on  the possible war with Iraq.

 The USM Department of History sponsored its second public forum on the issue,  which featured six panelists from the USM faculty.

One panelist, Paula Smithka, assistant professor of philosophy and religion, discussed Christian ideas of just warfare and questioned the ability of the U.S. to justify war with Iraq. Smithka said that the U.N. charter of 1945 says the only justifiable war is self-defense.

Smithka challenged the motive behind the pending war. "Our president and vice-president are both oil people," Smithka said.     Frank Glamser, professor of sociology, said that oil would not be the reason for war with Iraq.

"It is not blood for oil," Glamser said. He said the U.S. could get oil from Venezuela if the need for oil were the problem.

Glamser said Saddam Hussein is responsible for the rapes and murders of thousands of civilians, citing a need for a regime change. Hussein has also used poison gas on 5,000 in northern Iraq and set fire to 700 oil wells, Glamser said.

Dia Ali, a USM computer science professor said, "There is a lot of reason to go to war everywhere." Ali, who received a phone call from the USM Department of Human Resources confirming his U.S. citizenship recently, said, "Saddam Hussein does not care about anybody."

Elizabeth Drummond, USM history professor, explained European reactions to the President Bush's policy toward Iraq. She said European countries have been some of the closest allies to the U.S. in the fight against terrorism. France and Germany, however, support weapons inspections before declaring war on Iraq, Drummond said.

 Joseph Parker, USM political science professor, said Bush wants to show other Middle Eastern countries how to build democracies. War would be the easiest part of this process, Parker said. "The talk now is of a decade, at least, of American involvement." Projected costs for involvement in Iraq reach as high as $2 trillion, Parker said.

War in Iraq would result in anywhere from 48,000 to 200,000 deaths, many of which would be civilian deaths, Parker said. War in Iraq would also result in the destruction of transportation, electric grids and food and water supplies. The U.S. would have to feed 60 percent of Iraqis. While civilian opinion on the conflict with Iraq is split, civilians control the actions of the military, Lt. Col. Kevin Dougherty said.  "One of the founding principles of our country is civilian control of the military," Dougherty, professor of military science and chair of the department of military science, said.

One member of the audience voiced ambivalent opinions about the war. Bon Suarez, a 2002 graduate of USM and a lance corporal in the United States Marine Corps, said, "The last thing we want is war." Suarez, however,  said American civilians do not know results of biological weapons and other atrocities servicemen have seen.

news.mysanantonio.com By Analisa Nazareno San Antonio Express-News Web Posted : 03/07/2003 11:37 AM   Despite an Arab oil embargo that pounded the nation's economy into recession and efforts since then to curtail dependence on foreign oil, the United States imports even more oil today than it did 30 years ago.

In the late 1970s, when oil prices spiked because of turmoil in Iran, the nation's motorists and corporations consumed 17 million barrels of oil a day, with 40 percent from foreign sources.

Today, the nation consumes an additional 2 million barrels a day, and nearly 60 percent comes from foreign sources - with Middle East nations as the greatest source and volatile Venezuela as another big supplier.

And with the nation at the brink of war against Iraq, economists and environmentalists alike are calling for renewed focus on the nation's energy plan.

"We're not in an energy crisis now, but the stage is set for tragedy," said Joe Fulton, the director for research and environmental management for City Public Service. "The energy policy that the president introduced in 2001 was the beginning of an energy plan, but that's been put in the drawer, and it's gathering dust and it needs to be pulled out and discussed.

"Venezuela is on the verge of anarchy. The Middle East is in a state of perpetual turmoil. And Nigeria has its problems. Our main sources of oil are in geopolitically unstable places in this world, and there needs to be a plan that addresses this."

Fulton argued that the Energy Department needs a more coherent energy plan that includes deadlines for goals.

That plan would have to be hashed out by environmentalists and automobile manufacturers, energy suppliers and economists, who all bring different perspectives to the table.

Economists such as Milton L. Holloway argue that the only viable solution to the nation's oil dependence is the one that the market works out.

"We can create a long-term solution through the introduction of new technologies - if they pass the marketplace test," said Holloway, an Austin-based energy consultant who has advised Exxon, Ford and the Texas Department of Transportation. "Otherwise, the right answer is to let the marketplace dictate the solutions and keep the world oil market reasonably stable so that prices don't go sky high."

And environmentalists such as John DeCicco argue that the long-term solution is regulation - more stringent emissions and fuel mileage standards for new automobiles.

"If a political commitment was made, and if the government held car companies' feet to the fire, and we said, 'I don't care how you do it, just make cars cleaner,' then we would go a long way in cleaning the air and decreasing our dependence," DeCicco said. "I don't see any other way around our foreign oil dependence."

One other thing the two agree with is that the United States and its economy - because of the wide availability of gasoline and its relative cheapness - is almost hopelessly dependent on oil.

"We've got this infrastructure for making and selling gasoline built up to last 80 to 90 years It took almost a century to get gasoline on every corner in every major city," DeCicco said. "It's going to take a long time for alcohol and (compressed natural gas) or propane to develop that kind of infrastructure."

And it would take decades before the technology for cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells becomes affordable for that sort of infrastructure to develop.

Meanwhile, the Energy Department is projecting demand for oil to grow by 1.8 percent each year for the next 20 years.

This continued consumption, plus an impending war in the Middle East, has placed the nation's economy in a more vulnerable position today - even with the price and supply controls of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

"Before we talk about getting to freedom from oil, we have to talk about when are we going to put a cap on growth," DeCicco said.

Despite decades of developments in alternative fuels and regulations requiring automakers to produce vehicles capable of operating on such fuels, the use of them is almost miniscule.

Alternative fuels - ethanol, biodiesel, propane, natural gas, coal and battery power - make up less than 3 percent of the nation's automobile fuel consumption.

City Public Service, like many companies, started experimenting with electric-powered cars and alternative fuels during the oil crisis of the 1970s.

"The goal was to wean the United States off of imported oil," Fulton said. "It was not an environmental imperative, and it didn't have to necessarily be a clean fuel. The requirement was that the fuels just have to come from the United States."

The company's extensive experiments are like case studies in the political pitfalls and technological challenges of using alternative fuels.

The battery-powered cars the energy company used in the 1970s died out soon after charging up - in parking lots or on the street.

Its recent nine-month experiment with biodiesel seemed successful - the company fueled its 1,500 diesel engine tractor-trailers, trucks, forklifts and other vehicles with the processed vegetable and animal fat.

But the experiment came to a halt when the vehicles started sputtering because of congealed residue in the engines.

By the end of the year, the energy company plans to start using an ethanol and gasoline blend called E-85 on its 100 Ford Ranger and Expedition trucks and 30 Taurus sedans.

But the fuel is largely unavailable in Texas, although it is more widely sold in Midwestern states. City Public Service will have to dedicate a tank and station to the fuel and contract with an out-of-state supplier.

"Ethanol is not yet a big factor here in Texas, but we're trying," said Melissa Gutierrez, fleet operations engineer for City Public Service. "If we can get ethanol here and bring it to our fleet, that might bring some tread for the fuel to the city."

Federal laws require companies such as City Public Service to buy cars capable of operating on alternative fuels. And for building the cars, automakers get credits they can then use to build bigger-engine vehicles.

Because of the law, nearly 3 million cars with "flex-fuel" engines capable of running on either E-85 or gasoline are on the roads today. But because the ethanol fuel is not widely available, most fleet operators use gasoline.

And because fleet operators - with the exception of a few such as CPS - are not demanding the fuel, ethanol producers don't have the capability of supplying more than 10 percent of the nation's fuel consumption.

Environmentalists call this conundrum the "dual-fuel loophole."

"There's no requirement that any of these vehicles use any of that fuel," said Bill Prindle, the deputy director for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. "The evidence is that there's virtually no change in alternative fuel use, and what we're proposing is, if we're going to keep requiring fleets to include these dual-fuel cars, then we ought to tie the regulations to actual sales of these biofuels. We ought to give credit for credit that's actually earned and don't just give it for nothing."

Like DeCicco and Fulton, Prindle said the nation needs to discuss energy consumption and develop an energy plan that will clearly spell out goals.

Prindle said such a plan ought to include improved automobile fuel economy standards and incentives for automakers to develop the technology through tax incentives.

Ethanol distributor Jim Peeples of AAE Technologies Inc in Newark, Del., said such a policy would require fleet operators to use alternative fuels.

Fulton said he believes any energy policy would be the result of sacrifice and compromise.

Environmentalists might have to concede protection of some federal parks to get increased fuel economy standards. Automakers might have to build more expensive, energy-efficient engines if they want to continue building large trucks. Motorists might have to pay higher prices for cars and domestically drilled oil if they want more stable gasoline prices.

"We have a problem," Fulton said. "I don't have a solution, other than to say that smart people have to work together. And even if they have different objectives, they have to come up with a comprehensive, integrated energy policy. And that will not be an easy job."

anazareno@express-news.net   03/07/2003

sanantonio.bizjournals.com 10:27 AM CST Friday 

Gasoline prices remained stable across most of the state last week either rising or falling by less than a penny, according to AAA's Weekend Gas Watch.

The statewide average for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline is $1.587, a three-tenths of a cent decline from a week ago.

Gas prices dipped 0.8 cent in San Antonio, to $1.547 per gallon, the cheapest in the state. The Austin/San Marcos area saw a 0.4 cent decrease, to $1.557, while Corpus Christi gas prices increased by 0.1 cent, to $1.557.

Dallas, which continues to have the highest gas prices in the state, saw average prices inch up 0.1 cent, to $1.596 per gallon. The Fort Worth area saw prices dip 0.8 cent, to $1.584, and Houston prices remained unchanged at $1.588.

"Factors, such as the possibility of war in Iraq and the on-going petroleum strike in Venezuela, still exist but the price stability indicates that worldwide markets have adjusted to them," says AAA Texas spokeswoman Carol Thorp. "If international conditions remain the same, we would anticipate prices to remain close to their current levels in the coming week."

The AAA Texas survey tracks the average price of gas at popular car-trip destinations.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 By: Paul Volgyesi

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:15:44 +0100 From: Paul Volgyesi sanbasan@interware.hu To: editor@vheadline.com Subject: K vs. K

Dear Editor: Both Ks (Kaminsky and Kirkman) present us with a debate on America that hasn't changed one iota since the 1950s and would make for funny parodies if it wasn't so pathetic. Basically, K1 wouldn't live in the States where it is as bad as he sees it unless he's either a total idiot or a junkie on US consumerism, while the very concept of "Yankee Go Home" wouldn't exist if the US fitted K2's picture of it.

As for Mr. Kirkman's question: "Why not follow up his letter and tell us just exactly what it is that we Americans should be doing.", I can only answer:

• Go out and vote massively, do it based on facts -- easier obtained in the US than anywhere else in the world -- and not on commercial media lies and political ads, communicate with elected representatives and ask for respect of the US Constitution, laws and civil rights. No, sorry, DON'T DO IT! You may be accused to be a Castro-communist drug pusher, the drug being participative democracy!

*Look at it from a very egoistic point of view, don't feel for some whacked-out niggers out there in the bush, just for precious little YOURSELVES! That is, most of ALL of the damage the outer world is accusing neo-liberalism of doing to them is inflicted upon YOU TOO.

The only difference is that you have a little more distance to fall than they do.

Well, W.'s little war games may be accelerating that pace too.

Paul Volgyesi sanbasan@interware.hu

www.vheadline.com Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 By: Cecil Kirkman

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 19:16:24 -0500 From: Cecil Kirkman cecilkir@cox.net To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Re: VHeadline letter

Dear Editor: Reference the letter from Mr. Steven Hunt: Maybe I missed something or maybe you missed something in mine. I asked Mr. Kaminski to outline just exactly what the US policy should be and to spell out exactly the actions the US should take to be a peace loving and moral nation.

I would ask the same of you. It is easy to criticize ... it is easy to see the faults in others. But facing one's own shortcomings and presenting a better way... positive things ... are not so easy, are they?

But I ask the same from you, Mr. Hunt. Show us a better way. I cannot follow you if all you can do is hate, condemn, and see the bad things of life.

I would like to know the positive things that will occur if I follow your teachings ... is that asking too much?

Also, you are an expert at putting words into other people's mouths and misconstruing what they have to say. I did not ask Mr. Kaminski to leave the country, nor anyone else. I merely said I do not understand why anyone so bitter and unhappy with the country in which they live, would want to stay here and continue to be so unhappy and bitter.

And, as for me leaving, why? I am happy here and proud of my country. Why in God's name would I want to leave just because I disagree with my neighbor on some things?

And please, do not lecture me about the guaranteeing freedom of speech.

You wrote: "By the way -- freedom of expression was not "given" to us by elites; it was won by the little people that put their asses on the line and suffered state sponsored terror. Many people have been imprisoned, thrown out of work, or otherwise persecuted."

Mr. Hunt, you are addressing a man who served in the United States Air Force for over 26 years. I and my family have been shot at, escaped bombings by the skin of our teeth. I have held and consoled my children and explained to them that it was only a few fanatical Moslems that wished us harm.

If you read my bio, you know that I spent over 7 years in the Middle East living and working with Moslems. I married one and we have been together for over 40 years, happily married and have three wonderful boys (well, men now).

Mr. Hunt, I am one of those "little people that put their asses on the line"... for you, Mr. Hunt. I did it for you, that you might live in freedom and say what you want. And I can tell you for sure, I never suffered state-sponsored terror from any government. The vast majority of Moslems that I know (and there are many), are my personal and good friends and they all love America.

As for 90% of the world's population disagreeing and seeing our confrontation with Iraq as a war crime that will see the death of thousands of innocents, forgive me if I doubt your figures. I would be very interested in how you arrived at your figure. Where did you find that figure?

I also wonder this: A little over a week ago, there were mass demonstrations against an Iraqi war held in many cities around the world. Millions of people turned out to demonstrate. It was all coordinated so very well. The gathering and starting points were all predetermined. The route the parade was to take was laid out. At the end, there were stages constructed, loudspeakers and microphones at the ready. In almost every place, celebrities were scheduled to be there.

Famous singers and actors/actresses were present. A well-staged and awe inspiring event. But the whole thing raised certain questions in my mind. Who planned this demonstration? Other demonstrations that well-staged usually take months of planning and preparation ... usually about a year to plan and coordinate. And sponsors ... who sponsored these demonstrations? If the demonstrations are to have any credibility, they need to speak up and tell us stupid, lying Americans who they are.

I cannot agree or follow a group blindly unless I know who they are and what they advocate. I don't really want to know what they are against ... I want to know what they are for. Maybe you know, Mr. Hunt. If you do please let me know. I would appreciate it ... and I mean that sincerely.

Another thing about the demonstrations puzzled me. The official count given in the media, was that over 5 million turned out ... some said 6 million. OK, we know how the media is, don't we, Mr. Hunt. They would not tell us the real number. So let's say there were 10 times as many as the media said ... let's see, take the high figure (6 million), multiply that by 10 and we get 60 million people, right?

Well, every source I can find tells me that the world population is 6 billion. Well, if 60 million were at the demonstrations, where were the other 5 billion, 940 million people?

Of course, we know that the 2 billion people in the great country of China, which is a beacon of light and intelligence and democracy and freedom to the world, does not allow demonstrations unless they are state-sponsored. If you don't believe what happens to those who cross the state in China, ask the poor demonstrators in Tinnamen Square. The ones still alive (few of them) can tell you what happens if you criticize the government there. How would you fare there, Mr. Hunt?

I would suggest that you not live there. Nor Mr. Kaminski. Anyways, I digress. So getting back to my point. Because the 2 billion Chinese are not allowed to demonstrate, let's deduct them from the equation. That leaves 3 billion, 940 million not accounted for. Can you see why I sorta doubt what you say when you tell me 90% of the world's population believes the US is guilty of war crimes.

Did you know, Mr. Hunt, that the United States asked permission from every country ... for permission for our planes to fly over their country, if we needed to?  Did you know that, even though we could fly across most of them with no interference at all if we so desired, we will not do so if they object?

You don't believe me? Well, let me tell you that when I was in the Air Force, I was flying from Turkey to Germany on an Air Force plane. It was a passenger plane with no guns or ammo. The pilot before leaving Istanbul asked permission from Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Austria, and Switzerland for permission to fly over their country. We sat on the plane in Istanbul for over 5 hours waiting for replies. Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Austria denied us permission. So we asked Greece and Italy ... again permission denied. Did we fly over them anyway? No. We  respected their wishes, and we had to fly out of Istanbul, down the Turkish coast to the Mediterranean Sea, around Greece and around Italy and up across France to Frankfurt. ... it was way outta way and took us hours longer.

Does that sound like a country that does not respect other countries, Mr. Hunt?

Our country spends billions of dollars ... billions of dollars, Mr. Hunt, developing guided bombs that can hit with pin-point accuracy. Do you know why, Mr. Hunt?

Most other countries do not spend one dime developing such weapons. Why?

Because, Mr. Hunt, they are designed to hit targets and spare the civilian structures around them. We could build many more daisy cutters and very cheaply bomb buildings in a city and wipe them out if we had no concern for civilian casualties. I know what I am talking about ... I was a part of the planning. I am not telling you what a government told me to say ... I am telling you what I know from first hand experience.

• Yes, civilians do get killed in a war, Mr. Hunt. It is unavoidable. But if America did not care and spend billions, thousands more would be killed than do.

Now do not misunderstand me. I am not telling you to think like I do. I am not telling you to shut up. I put my life on the line, to give you the right to speak up, and say what you believe. So once again, do not put words in my mouth. I disagree with you but I do not tell you to shut up.

It does not bother me that we disagree.  But what does bother me, is the vile words and language you use to attack me ... why? Because you disagree with me.

I put my life on the line for you ...and you (figuratively) spit in my face and call me dirty names. Polite people would say thank you for the thought, but I disagree with you. But I guess to you, you are just telling it like it is, without regard for my feelings. For I am nothing but a stupid, blind idiot who knows nothing.

You wrote: "Mr. Kirkman, you subscribe to the vile patriotism that is blind and morally defunct -- you demand that we obey and not be angry or critical at the gross hypocrisy we see."

Again, you put words in my mouth that I did not utter.

For you see, Mr. Hunt, although I disagree with you, I have never ... and will never demand that you obey and not be angry or critical at the gross hypocrisy that you see.

And I have never and will never tell you to shut up. NEVER.

For the more you talk and the more people you talk to, the more you become your own worst enemy.

Respectively yours, Horace C. Kirkman Cecilkir@cox.net