• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Truth loses in Iraq war

Padraig OCinnead

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
1
Points
230
I read this in the Toronto Sun columnist section by Mr Peter Worthington. It is another perspective valid of your time to read.

this is the link to it,
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/06/26/514680.html

Increasingly, many Americans (and others) are distressed at media reports from Iraq, that they feel are distorted and create a false impression.

There's some truth to this -- witness CNN jumping uncritically to report that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld okayed the use of so-called waterboard torture that simulates drowning in order to extract confessions.

This subsequently turned out to be untrue -- although Rumsfeld okayed a number of interrogation techniques, but nothing that violated the Geneva Convention. What he okayed was interrogators yelling at prisoners, offering inducements, the use of multiple interrogators, using lies to get info, deceit, false documents, but nothing injurious or life-threatening.


Prisoners may be denied hot food and "condemned" to eat MREs (Meals Ready to Eat), which, horrors, are what American soldiers eat in the field. Oh, the inhumanity ...

President George W. Bush is on record vowing that the "principles" of the Geneva Convention will apply to all prisoners.

As for the despicable (but not lethal) abuse of Iraq prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, the U.S. now has footage of Iraqi guards slowly and imaginatively killing prisoners bit by bit to reassure Saddam Hussein and his perverted, homicidal sons.

Frankly, I'd argue that these films be widely shown, if only to put "torture" into perspective -- such as Muslim militants decapitating hostages. How are such people reformed or re-educated into cultural decency?

In truth, they can't be. Putting current events into perspective is never easy and rarely appreciated. But it's sometimes necessary.

Different perspective

I received the following from Simma Holt, former Liberal MP under Pierre Trudeau and a News Hall of Fame journalist from B.C.

Where Simma -- no fan of the Bush family -- got this I've no idea, but it's a perspective that often differs from what we get from media reports:

Last January, there were 39 combat-related killings in Iraq. In the city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the same month. That's just one American city -- about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war because Iraq never threatened America, it could be recalled that in 1941 President Franklin Roosevelt went to war with Germany, which never attacked America. Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 American lives were lost -- an average of 112,500 per year.

President Harry Truman concluded the war against Japan ... and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked America as al-Qaida did, but from 1950-1953, 55,000 U.S. lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

Vietnam 'quagmire'

John Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked. President Lyndon Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost -- an average of 5,800 per year.

When he was president, Bill Clinton went to war in Kosovo, without UN or French consent. Serbia never attacked America. Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked the West on multiple occasions.

In the two years since 9/11, Bush has liberated two countries. Crushed the Taliban. Crippled al-Qaida. Put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound -- a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time that it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose law firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida.

From this perspective, President Bush as commander-in-chief is doing a great job, with military morale high.

Some people just don't see all the facts
 
Thats a great post!

Seems that if truth is the first casualty of war, perspective must surely be the second!

There are more than a few in North America who could do with a bit of truth AND perspective...  

Slim :army:
 
Good post Paddy, you bog trotting mic.

I've read a few of Mr Worthingtons columns and this one is quite refreshing. Unfortunately the media in Iraq rarely leaves the dubious comforts of Baghdad to see the relatively good gains made in the rest of the country, for those of you who didn't know there exists a whole country outside of the capital city. With the exception of a dozen (I'm being generous) or so cities the coalition have made very good in the north and the south of Iraq. But like other tours (Somalia, Bosnia etc)  we often only hear about the mistakes made by western foreign policies. There are many great things happening. But alas, this sort of thing isn't sexy enough to sell rags at the local news vendor. I've gained enough from the folks posting in here that many of them have been to these places and have been there when the new school gets opened, where the blown bridge is repaired and have seen the kids get stuffed toys sent over to them instead of goodie boxes.

 
Freedom of the press is very important. I remember there was a large flood in southran China when I was young. We had an  Great Aunt living there who disappeared and we did not know why because the government hid the fact about the flood. I did not learn until many years later, I ran into a freind who had lived in the states. We think our Aunt die in the flood with many others.

I really believe that to get the truth, the media cannot be with the government. Also, the medica cannot be worried about getting ratings and advertisments because then they distort the truth to get more money. I don't know what the solution would be, but maybe someone here have an idea.
 
Back
Top