In my angsting about how to think about Iraq, if the statements in this story are true, I would be all for an Iraqi invasion tomorrow.
And as a bonus link for those of you actually reading, an optimistic take on the progress in Afghanistan. It's true that the entire country has yet to be brought under the new Afghan regime, but every journey starts with a single step. Why do people insist on patience with respect to Iraq, but point to the Afghanistan as an American failure because it's not finished yet. Nation building takes time.
Trackbacks
Comments
Well, to tell the truth, I really doubt such interviews count. Because people, who want to speak to this and that interviewer, just come up and speak. I assure you, if some TV company that is anti-war would try to interview somebody, people that are aginst war would show up. Futhermore, the way reporters cut out stuff that they, fore some reason, do not like, is well known. Once again, the way the whole campaign is shown on Russian TV & newspapers, German and French differs like B&W from your links. I can give you a 100 links to russian sites where people in Iraq being interviewrd show great anticipation on war.
Given that the newspaper is in South Carolina, I'm sure that the story may be a bit biased in its presentation to the subscribers there. However, the point of what I was trying to say remains the same. If the Iraqis want Saddam out of the picture, I'm still in support for a campaign to remove him. The difficult thing is to determine the actual will and desires of the Iraqi population. Saddam thinks that they are firmly behind him -- he cited a 99.6% reelection figure -- but the methods to arrive at that consensus (yes/no ballot with gov't minders watching the vote) is hardly any way to guage true public opinion.
Furthermore, in this article in the Atlantic Monthly [ http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm ] that I read in December, the intimate details of Saddam's life and rise to power (and the behavior of his family) do not paint a rosy picture of a beloved leader. Of course, I expect you to counter that since the article is from an American media source, it can't possibly be accurate or any depiction of the reality of the situation. However, I do find myself in a situation then because the relevent UN documents are so vaguely worded in diplomatic double-speak that they can be interpreted as one wants, I have to go to other sources for peripheral information about this situation. I'm getting the impression that you think the US media is essentially worthless because American reporters will report what Americans want to hear. However, what is it about the European press that makes it any more credible? I agree that people reading into this conflict should balance their information from different sources, but getting back to the issue at hand -- I've not seen any press that paints Saddam as any sort of leader that is good to the Iraqi people and so to me the question is whether a quick assault into Baghdad with some civilian casualties and a regime change (and if this happens, the regime that will be in place will be scrutinized heavily for those waiting for a US misstep) is better for the people than a prolonged existence under Saddam and perhaps his son Uday. For me, I see more sources that say that while war is bad, living under Saddam long term is worse. However, since there is no way to accurately gauge the opinion of the Iraqis, I have to use less than perfect media sources. (I invite you to send me some links of interviews that show Iraqis opposing the war and making their opinions known while not in the presence of an Iraqi official while talking to a foreign journalist.)
I'm thankful for this exchange and while we don't see eye-to-eye on some issues, you force me to be more honest with myself. However, I do have one question... In your prior posting, you mentioned that you felt that the media has had too much involvement in this situation and that they twist things too much. In this situation -- assuming that all media are twisting things to their own ends -- what is the role of a world citizen in this case? Since information from the media is suspect and there is no ability to collect and analyze primary information outside UN documents and historical resources -- how should one draw any conclusions about what's happening now and how the world should approach the situation? Is the answer simply to read as much biased media as possible and hope that the biases cancel each other out -- like a mental averaging of the news -- or should people resign themselves to the fact that all accessible relevent content is tainted and trust that the people with the information -- the leaders -- are working in the best interests of all involved? Maybe it's my lack of creative thinking here -- but what's one to do?
-Chris
Note that by posting a comment on this site using this form or any other software tool, you have agreed to the advertising terms of this site and you agree to submit payment for any advertising in the comment above as outlined in the advertising terms. This applies to ads posted in the URL or Comment fields above.
![XHTML](../../xhtml.png")