Regina DeMauro/The Ithacan SOPHOMORE KRISTEN ZATINA, left, of the Ithaca College Republicans speaks during a forum Tuesday about the potential for war with Iraq while panelists Frank Musgrave, center, professor of economics, and Matthew Evangelista, director of peace studies at Cornell University, listen.

With a trembling voice and shaking hands, junior Tracy Portle asked the four Republican panelists at Tuesday night’s Student Government Association Forum on Iraq if they would be willing to sacrifice their lives to defend the nation’s interests.

“It’s our friends who are going to war right now, those who say, ‘I’m willing to die for my country,’” Portle said. “Are you also willing to die for what you believe in?”

This was one of many emotional responses to issues raised during the event, which lasted for more than two hours. Seven panelists, four in support of pre-emptive strikes and three in favor of alternative solutions, shared their political views with more than 150 students, faculty and community members crowded into Textor 103. Sophomore Sheila Katz, president of the Residence Hall Association, moderated the event.

The idea of “blood for oil,” Iraq’s history of human rights violations and the role of the United States as world peacekeeper ignited intense debates among members of the panel and among audience members.

The Republican panelists, who spoke first, listed Iraq’s failure to disarm and dishonesty regarding its weapons programs as substantial evidence of Saddam’s danger to the world community.

Sophomore Michelle Meredith, chairwoman of the Ithaca College Republicans, and Ryan Horn, chairman of the Cornell Republicans, said they support military action in Iraq because there is a credible threat there, given the actions of Saddam since the 1990 Gulf War. They cited Saddam’s violation of 16 U.N. resolutions as evidence of his violent nature.

“It’s clear that Saddam’s intentions are anything but peaceful,” Meredith said. “The world has waited 12 years [for Saddam to disarm]. He’s a threat to the world and to our national security.”

Sophomore Kristen Zatina, director of public relations for ICR, stressed the need to oust Saddam because he treats his people unjustly.

“He’s a man bathing in the wealth of six million dollars while his people are starving in the streets,” Zatina said.

Frank Musgrave, professor of economics, condemned the use of anti-intellectual slogans like “blood for oil,” as reasons not to go to war. He said the threat of Iraq’s biological, chemical and nuclear weaponry pose an immediate threat to the region and the United States, and that’s where protesters should be focusing attention.

The panelists opposed to war said their main concerns were the cost of war on the Iraqi and American people and the risk of increased terrorism caused by such a war.

Matthew Evangelista, director of the peace studies program at Cornell University, noted the political instability of other countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia. He expressed concern that the focus on Iraq is distracting policymakers from addressing problems in the regions.

Senior Joey Cronen of Students for a Just Peace said he thinks a war would put the nation into more danger by giving terrorists greater incentive to counter U.S. aggression. He also cited the costs — $40 billion to enact and $100 billion to rebuild the country of Iraq following military action — as detractors from any aggressive action.

Senior Lucas Shapiro, who cited a Time magazine poll in which 80 percent of Europeans listed the United States as the greatest threat to world peace, encouraged students to do their own research into these issues.

Jules Benjamin, professor of history, was slated to speak against the war, but was unable to participate due to illness.

After the panelists finished their prepared speeches, Katz fielded verbal and written questions, some of which she said were hostile toward the Republican panelists.

Katz said she was pleased with the level of discussions but wished there had been more audience tolerance for different ideas.

“In the future, I would like to see people come in with an open mind,” Katz said. “If we don’t allow ourselves to listen to what we disagree with, then it doesn’t allow some people with that information to ever present it.”