As seen in the protests of the Vietnam War and during the civil rights struggle, universities have traditionally been breeding grounds for outspoken, passionate individuals who have much to say about what goes on in the world.
With a war looming in this era of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare, UB students and faculty voice their opinion on how a war of this magnitude will affect the world.
"Mammas are going to be blown to bits with their babies right next to them," said Jack Dracona, a graduate student concentrating on education. "Patriots keep going around spouting 'America America'; (the) fact is, war is death. People need to stop worrying about their identities as patriots and start worrying about human life."
Some people believe, however, that Bush's decision to go to war is a necessity for the preservation of human life.
"It is frustrating that people are impervious to the facts and want to wish (war) away," said James Campbell, a professor in the department of political science. "Bush is being responsible; his father wasn't, Clinton wasn't, the French and Germans aren't. People are being irresponsible to dismiss the idea of a war to protect civilization from this menace."
Others disagree that war is the only answer to what Campbell called a "renegade dictatorship."
Justin McDowell, a sophomore communication and marketing major, said a war would negatively affect that state of the world.
"I think that right now, so much has gone on in the last three years, war just adds to the destruction of our nation. To put it simply, the last thing we need right now is a war. It's tearing the world apart in terms of social divisions that we don't need," he said.
Many believe that war looms solely based on the fact that President George W. Bush is a strong proponent of it.
"Bush is the laughingstock of half the globe," said Katie Austin, a junior linguistics major. "Pair that with his arrogance, and you have a dictator-like president who uses bullying other countries as a way to take the focus off the fact that he's a horrible ruler."
"You'd have to be completely naive not to see (his) ulterior motives," said Austin. "Once again, Bush wrecked the economy, and he knows a war will boost it back up, which may also boost his sagging popularity rate."
Despite whatever motives Bush may have, Timothy Menasco, a freshman majoring in chemical engineering, feels war with Iraq is inevitable.
"It's either now or later, we should go now because we may not be able to later after (Saddam Hussein) has developed weapons of mass destruction. Based on the evidence that the Secretary of State presented to the U.N., I think we should go to war," he said.
Bethany Lafferty, a sophomore economics major, agrees and said the situation with Iraq has passed the point of peace efforts.
"I wish we can solve it without going to war but I don't think we can. Saddam is stubborn and prideful. He poses a threat and I'm sure he's capable of doing harm," she said.
Michael Farrell, a professor in the department of sociology, said that if the United States is interested in having a positive effect on world relations, the decision to move to war should be taken into consideration.
"The U.N. Security Council is wise to carefully weigh what's going on and to want to set a wise precedent. To move without them would be a big mistake," he said. "We are laying down a precedent for the 21st century on how to deal with smaller, less powerful countries."
Farrell said his "biggest fear" is that the Islamic world will come to view the United States as "a threat and an oppressor."
Campbell thinks the United Nations has waited long enough to deal accordingly with Iraq.
"Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said to wait for a second U.N. resolution. That isn't right, this would be the 18th. If the U.N. means anything, if they are more than just hot air, they have to become active and not be like the League of Nations, which fell apart before World War II," he said.
Walter Simpson, a professional staff member in the office of University Facilities and a former director of the Western New York Peace Center, said he believes the impending war is a result of alternative U.S. interests in the Middle East.
"I find it remarkable that the Bush Administration's obsession with waging war with Saddam Hussein neglects to mention this overriding strategic interest," he said.
"There is almost a uniform exclusion of this story from all discussions of the war by the mainstream media, which suggests incredible irresponsibility, blindness or corporate bias, and it underlines the importance for citizens to find alternative sources of information and not just to get the news at six o' clock," Simpson said.
Campbell, who is also a member of the Academic Advisory Committee to the Republican National Committee, believes the government has made the focus of the war very clear.
"The most important thing in Bush's State of the Union Address is the enormity of weapons of mass destruction that we know Saddam Hussein had before inspections in the late nineties, and the president spoke about the tons of nerve gas and other biological weapons that was found. You don't produce that kind of material in that quantity unless you're out to do major harm to civilization," he said.
Campbell believes war would be a "stabilization factor for economies around the world" once Saddam is overthrown. He said there will be greater international security without the threat of terrorism.
Some members of UB are taking an active stance in their opposition to the war.
James Whitlock, associate director of Computing Services, has recently been assisting and endorsing several rallies dedicated to peace. Although he has been directly involved on campus, trying to interest students in peace, Whitlock said he has been having difficulty engaging student interest.
"I wanted to make them at least give me the courtesy of looking at me," he said. "We may not be able to change things right away, but at least we're being heard.
Photo: Meredith Forrest Kulwicki
