Not that interesting really.
Saddam was a very nasty man - everyone knew that.
He was gassing and torturing his own people when he was a friend of the West - so why, now, do we express moral outrage about these acts when before they were overlooked?
Saddam's brutality is not news - but I would hope that any lesser American brutality of untried Iraqi prisoners is news.
His oppressive regime was NOT the reason why we went to war - in fact it was stated by both Bush & Blair that all Saddam had to do to prevent the invasion was to fully comply with their demands about weapons inspections.
There are some horrific acts being perpetrated by regimes that are supported by the US - why is it alright to support the brutalities of the regime in Uzbekistan, and yet justify a full-scale invasion of Iraq by pointing to the brutalities of the regime?
And we get the same old nonesense again
"Terrorism is sometimes called asymmetric warfare ? America had to adjust to new tactics to deal with small bands of terrorists who were able to turn our airplanes into weapons against us. Now it turns out that we also face asymmetric propaganda ? where the terrorists gain a p.r. advantage precisely because what they do is so horrific that our media aren't able to deal with it."
Saddam was not a "terrorist" - he was not linked to Al-Q, he had nothing to do with 9-11. The New York Post is clearly trying to justify Bush's actions in Iraq by pointing to the dreadful attack on New York - but this is an entirely false link.
Yes Saddam was a bad man - and no-one mourns his passing. But has the way he was removed made the world a safer place?
We supported Saddam when he was a brutal dictator.
We support other brutal dictators now.
We told Saddam and the world that he could continue to be a brutal dictator providing he complied with UN resolutions.
So why does the fact that he was a brutal dictator now justify the invasion?
That which is reported....
Re: That which is reported....
It wasn't clear to me which story I was supposed to respond to.
Mart
Mart
Re: That which is reported....
I've revisited the link and now read the article.
But what is your point?
I think Spook's reply says it all.
And anyway, I thought all the US media were leftist. Isn't the NY Post owned by that well known liberal the Dirty Digger?
Mart
But what is your point?
I think Spook's reply says it all.
And anyway, I thought all the US media were leftist. Isn't the NY Post owned by that well known liberal the Dirty Digger?
Mart