President Bush's plans for war with Iraq were discussed Thursday night at a Brandeis forum sponsored by the American Studies and Politics departments. This is the first in a series of forums meant to address current political issues. The "New Brandeis Forum: War in Iraq?," provided an informative discussion in which the impending war in Iraq could be debated from multiple angles.Approximately 200 students attended the event. Professor Steven Burg (POL) introduced the forum, explaining the format. He explained that the panelists would each be given seven minutes to express their opinions on the impending war, and would also be required to take a definitive stance: either pro or anti-war. Burg added that students would be able to state their own thoughts on the issue following the professors' speeches.

Students expressed varying opinions of the strength of the professors' arguments. "Although I disagreed with him, Jacob Cohen had the best argument because he came fully prepared, brought books to show, and invited us to do our own research into the matter. I agreed most with Professor Fellman because he would like us to go through the peace process and avoid war," Ronitte Shemtov '06 said.

This forum was prompted because "several of (the) faculty were talking with each other about (their) desire to talk amongst (them)selves and with (their) students about what is likely an impending war. We need to learn more about our reasoning and bring our students into the discussion too," Professor Gordon Fellman (SOC), one of the forum's organizers, said. He added that it is imperative to hold the discussion now because "our government may, in our names and with our money, embark on a war without provocation, killing who knows how many innocent people, toward a very unclear end."

Professor Robert Art (POL) said he believes there are several reasons not to go into war. He said these include the possible casualty rate on both sides and disastrous political fallout in the Middle East if the United States attacks Iraq without provocation. Art added that other deterrents, such as coercive weapons inspections and perhaps even giving Saddam Hussein economic incentives to avoid using weapons of mass destruction could prove to be more effective than going to war.

Professor Jacob Cohen (AMST) disputed Art's argument. Cohen said he believes Hussein is a loose cannon -- a reckless man who cannot be trusted. Cohen added that Hussein has killed over 1 million people, including many Iraqi citizens, and was the only world leader to publicly cheer about the September 11th attacks. Cohen also said the U.S. government must consider the consequences of not attacking versus attacking, and decide which is a better course for the nation's future.

Professor Erica Harth (COML) argued there is no clear reason to go to war with Iraq -- that a war will not solve our issues with Hussein. She added that although she believes North Korea poses a greater threat to U.S. security, Bush has not proposed attacking that country. Also, Harth said Hussein's refusal of weapon's inspections, Bush's given motive for war, is not a strong enough reason for the United States to attack Iraq. She added that attacking Iraq could increase current tensions in the Middle East.

Burg said that the American public must determine if Hussein really poses as much a threat as Bush claims. Burg argued that in the past, sanctions have not effectively curtailed the production of weapons of mass destruction. He added he hopes the public realizes that, in this case, nuclear arms are not the true threat -- chemical and biological weapons are.

After hearing the professors' arguments, students were left with the opportunity to form their own opinions on the issue. "I thought it was a good way to get information out, and for students to see the different sides of the issue. It promoted dialogue," Kara Bogusz '05 said.

-- Jamie Freed contributed to this article