Last Thursday, I walked out on war. It was not an easy decision to make and one which I grappled with for quite a while. With the ever growing dissonance of opinions in this country as to whether this war in Iraq should be fought, it was hard to find where I stood. Yet, after attending the walkout on Thursday, I know, for me, I did the right thing.I have been asked by many people why I chose to demonstrate after the war had already started. My actions have even been described as "unpatriotic" and "disrespectful of our troops fighting for our security in Iraq." My response to these accusations lay in my love and respect for this country. As a citizen of this haven of freedom and democracy, I have the right to show my disagreement with our government. Taking it even further, it is not just my right, but my duty as a concerned citizen to actively, yet peacefully let my government know how I feel.

At this point I am frustrated and feel a very low level of efficacy within our government and American society in general. People don't listen, but rather spew their opinions and wait for a rebuke. Walking out was my way of listening. I listened not only to those I agree with, but the other side as well. It was incredible seeing how, even in the frustration and anger many of us were feeling, we could stand outside expressing ourselves and showing those around us how we feel. And we didn't question the motives or patriotism of those whom we opposed.

I have been against this war since the beginning (whenever that is considered to be). Putting aside my political views, I have attempted to examine the many arguments on both sides. As convincing as the pro-war stance may be, I refuse to believe war is our best option in this case.

I am not a pacifist by any means. Sometimes war is inevitable. It should, however, be treated as an option only in the most compelling situations. I believe this war was avoidable and is based on fallacious motives. Morally, if our country inappropriately uses war as an option, we have the obligation to oppose it.

Saddam Hussein is evil; there is no denying this fact. But is destroying his country and killing civilians really the answer to his evil? I don't believe that the litmus test for war is ridding countries of oppressive dictators. If that were our policy, we would be in a constant state of war. Under the Clinton doctrine, Hussein's 1988 to 1991 genocide against the Kurds, the Iraqis in the South and the Iranians would certainly constitute justification for stopping him, but why now? Under international law, it is illegal to attack a nation that does not pose an immediate threat or is not currently committing acts of genocide. The United States has defied international law in these respects.

Not only have we defied international law, but we have also deliberately undermined the United Nations and, in doing this, disregarded world opinion. The world, through the United Nations, came up with options by which Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction could have been identified and destroyed without the use of the murderous option of war. We certainly could have increased the number of weapons inspectors and scoured the entire countryside. Indeed, the documents presented as evidence of Iraq's purchase of nuclear material turned out to be false. The tubes supposedly bought for the production of nuclear devices were not the right dimensions and the whole case that might have justified the position of the United States was undermined. The United States is now accepting the support of oppressive dictators to fight Hussein, an oppressive dictator.

Diplomacy was the only answer to this conflict. Instead of blindly sacrificing the lives of young soldiers, it is time we used other options. I don't think President Bush or any of the other conductors of this war realize how devastating war is. After all, neither Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld nor Condoleezza Rice ever served in active combat duty. None of their children will be at risk. Some believe in order to save Iraqi lives, we must sacrifice American lives, but I am not ready to come to this conclusion.

This policy of preemptive war will never garner my support. We cannot turn to hawkish options without confronting the consequences. The president hasn't the right to place American military personnel in harms way without exhausting all other viable options which will not exacerbate the situation. By keeping a close watch on Hussein with support of the international community, we would have most likely been able to preserve both American and Iraqi lives and accomplish the objective of destroying his weapons of mass destruction.

When I walked out last Thursday, I walked out knowing that as I exerted my freedom of speech and demonstrated, soldiers and civilians halfway around the world were being killed. I cannot remain silent and agree with this administration's actions. As evil as Saddam is, I believe there was another way.

-- Samantha Slater '05 submits a column to the Justice.