mmediately, we perceive the Iraqis to be our enemies, while we, the United States, are the righteous, the defenders of freedom, who have an obligation to expel the aggressors from innocent Kuwait, because we are a dominant force in the world. However, there are also people who believe that Saddam Hussein is on a crusade to unite all of the Arab countries , just as Bismarck did in Germany in the late 1800s. Rather than a sort of Hitler, some compare Hussein to Bismarck, who, although using ruthless tactics, united Germany and is today considered hero.

What Hussein stands to gain by the acquisition of Kuwait does not go unnoticed, but the point here is that perhaps much of what we see through the mediums of television and newspaper is colored. Whether or not the publishers of newspapers and the production managers of news stations believe that Hussein is on an evil mission, shouldn't those absorbing the news make that decision for themselves? Shouldn't they see a clip of Hussein's speeches without the colored commentary (unintended though it may be) of a biased journalist?

With less emphasis on the views our leaders have, and more emphasis on the views of others, it is still possible that the viewers or the readers will decide the U.S. must intervene. For the sake of President Bush and a united country that supports our soldiers, individuals must make that decision. But if we, the American public, hear only what our leaders think, and what those in power reiterate, we may well be led into a war with our eyes blindfolded,no better off than the Iraqi